DISSENT INTO MADNESS

Ron Paul Is Right (As Usual)

2009-06-30T00:32:00.000-04:00

Administering a multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme in the private sector makes you 'extraordinarily evil.' They'll throw the book at you.

Administering a multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme for the state is not only legal, it's compulsory. They'll hand you the keys to the kingdom!

An Objective, Dispassionate and Totally Devastating Appraisal of Chris Osgood as Hall of Famer

2009-06-04T00:24:00.004-04:00

Bill Hicks used to joke about the abortion debate thusly:

"I, ah...this abortion issue in the States is dividing the country right in half. You know, and even amongst my friends - we're all highly intelligent - they're totally divided on the issue of abortion. Totally divided. Some of my friends think these pro-life people are just annoying idiots. Other of my friends think these pro-life people are evil fucks. How are we gonna have a consensus? I'm torn. I try and take the broad view and think of them as evil, annoying fucks."

This bit reminds me of the debate surrounding Chris Osgood's Hall of Fame viability. Kevin Allen makes a pretty reasonable case for "Ozzie." On the other side, the sum of this guy's argument is that Osgood was great in that one game against Chicago so this other guy - who convincingly presents the "con" argument - can "suck it." People, how are we gonna reach a consensus?

The case for Osgood, it seems to me, revolves around three things: 1) He's a money goalie in the postseason, 2) he is popular among teammates and fans, and 3) durability and good fortune have helped him compile impressive counting stats.

Osgood's candidacy is the touchstone for another type of Hall of Fame debate: "peak" value vs. "career" value. Evaluating career value rewards good players with steady, unspectacular careers - someone like Curtis Joseph comes to mind.

Peak value looks at a player at his best: was this player ever considered one of the best at his position? Ken Dryden embodies peak value over career value - he is undoubtedly one of the greatest goaltenders ever, yet his 258 career wins (over 10 seasons) ranks only 35th in NHL history, behind such luminaries as Kelly Hrudey and Gilles Meloche.

Looked at in terms of career value, Chris Osgood presents a superficially strong case for the Hall of Fame: 389 career wins, 3 Stanley Cups, 2.47 career GAA, 49 shutouts. These credentials stack up well against some existing members (Billy Smith, Gerry Cheevers). So what's with the backlash?

Through no fault of his own, Chris Osgood's achievements are seen as the product of luck and opportunism: he plays for a modern dynasty in a low scoring era, distorting his statistics in multiple ways:

1. Historically and without adjusting for context, Osgood looks far better compared to goalies from higher scoring eras (like the '80s) than he really is;

2. Because he's played the bulk of his career for some truly great Red Wings teams, Osgood's numbers look inflated when compared to his lesser supported contemporaries.

Let's take a closer look:

PEAK IS WEAK
Chris Osgood's peak value would represent one of the lowest of any Hall of Fame goalie:

Black Ink Test (led NHL) = 2: Wins (1996), GAA (2008)
Gray Ink Test (top 10 in NHL) = Wins (6x), GAA (4x), SV% (3x), SO (5x)

Major Awards:

Zero Vezina Trophies
Zero Conn Smythe Awards
Zero 1st Team NHL All-Stars
One 2nd Team NHL All-Star

THANKS FOR THE SUPPORT!
We would expect a Hall of Fame caliber goalie to perform significantly better than league average in many key metrics, such as SV%. Over the course of Chris Osgood's career (1993-2009), the NHL SV% among all goalies (Osgood and empty net goals excepted) is .905%.

Chris Osgood's SV% over that span: .906%.

*(A concession: SV% is quantitative, not qualitative. I'm presuming for argument's sake that SV% is support-neutral and intrinsic to a goalie's skillset. This is unlikely but we have to hope it evens out in the long run. There is no real way to isolate or control for shot quality or defensive support based on team/environmental factors. So it's probably the best we can do for now. If anything, this presumption helps Osgood, because theoretically the Red Wings would limit the opposition's quality scoring chances.)

So we've established that Osgood's SV% is roughly league average, which should make it obvious why his other numbers are so dazzling: it's all about the support of his talented teammates. And that can be measured by how many shots on goal he's faced compared to league average.

For his career Chris Osgood has faced 26.2 shots on goal per 60 minutes (SOG/60). The NHL average over that same span is 28.6 SOG/60. The difference may seem minor but the impact is huge when stretched over his entire career. Osgood's teams have saved him approximately 1,622 shots on goal over the course of his career vs. the league average environment.

*(For the math-obsessed: Osgood has faced 17,770 shots in 40,683 minutes = 26.2 SOG/60. In those same minutes, the goalie in the league average environment of 28.6 SOG/60 would face approximately 19,392 shots = 1,622 more shots.)

Assuming his save percentage remained steady at .906%, this means he would stop about 1,470 of those extra shots - tacking another 152 goals onto his career record. So, his sterling 2.47 career GAA would balloon to 2.70 - which is exactly league average over that span (1993-2009). All things being equal, shouldn't we expect more than league average from a Hall of Fame goalie?

CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING
Osgood's adjusted GAA (2.77) ranks 38th in NHL history - behind such notables as Andy Moog, Rick Wamsley, and Pete Peeters. Again, does this sound like a Hall of Famer?

CONCLUSION
Chris Osgood owes the bulk of his Hall of Fame argument to the support of his Motor City teammates. The talent difference between him and keepers like Tom Barrasso, Rogie Vachon and Mike Vernon is whisker thin, but it is Osgood who is likely to be inducted into the Hall of Fame, not them. To some that makes him undeserving. But as William Munny famously remarked, "Deserve's got nuthin' to do with it."

What Does History Tell Us About the Pens-Wings Rematch?

2009-05-28T23:59:00.002-04:00

Not a whole hell of a lot, but I spent like an hour researching this, so might as well share:

The Pittsburgh Penguins and Detroit Red Wings face off in a rematch of last year's Stanley Cup Final. The questions you didn't ask, but I answered, are:

HOW DID PREVIOUS REMATCHES TURN OUT?
The 2009 Cup Final marks the 13th rematch (consecutive seasons only) in NHL history. In the previous 12, the teams split 5 times, one team took both series 7 times:

-Splits: 1921-22 Ottawa/Toronto; 1923-24 Ottawa/Montreal; 1932-33 Toronto/New York; 1955-56 Montreal/Detroit; 1983-84 New York Islanders/Edmonton.

-Sweeps: 1948-49 Toronto over Detroit; 1954-55 Detroit over Montreal; 1957-58 Montreal over Boston; 1959-60 Montreal over Toronto; 1963-64 Toronto over Detroit; 1968-69 Montreal over St. Louis; 1977-78 Montreal over Boston.

SLIGHT ADVANTAGE: Detroit.

FOR DETROIT: HOW DO DEFENDING CHAMPIONS FARE WHEN MAKING THE CUP FINALS THE NEXT SEASON?
Very well, naturally. The 2009 Wings are the 39th Cup winner to return to the Finals - the previous 38 are 25-13 (.658%). These teams are defending champions with good reason.

ADVANTAGE: Detroit.

FOR PITTSBURGH: HOW MANY TEAMS HAVE LOST THE STANLEY CUP FINALS ONE SEASON AND WON IT THE NEXT?
Twelve officially, with one huge asterisk: this happened much more often in the league's early years. Fewer teams = more opportunities to win. Here's the complete list:

1919 Montreal Canadiens
1922 Toronto St. Patricks
1923 Ottawa Senators
1924 Montreal Canadiens
1927 Ottawa Senators
1933 New York Rangers
1943 Detroit Red Wings
1950 Detroit Red Wings
1953 Montreal Canadiens
1956 Montreal Canadiens
1968 Montreal Canadiens
1984 Edmonton Oilers

That's a grim trend if you're a Pens fan. In the Expansion Era (1968 on), only two teams have lost the Cup Final one year and won the next, and the last time it happened Chris Chelios was a rookie (no, really).

GOOD FEELING GONE: Pittsburgh.

The data isn't quite conclusive but the Pens have a bit of history working against them. Of course, I'm rooting for them, especially since this Thrasher fan would love to see Marian Hossa's "can't-beat-'em-join-'em" bandwagoning backfire so hilariously. And with apologies to the economically depressed and Lions-saddled people of Detroit, few things would make me happier than seeing legions of insufferable, trash-talking Wings fans STFU for a change.

Go Pens!

What Michael Phelps Should Say

2009-02-08T23:01:00.001-05:00

It's really a shame that Michael Phelps has apologized and groveled for "forgiveness" after being photographed hitting a bong. I understand why, but a golden opportunity was missed, yet again.

Just once, I'd like to see someone in Phelps' position defiantly state: "You know what? No. I won't apologize. Drug prohibition, and the way it is prosecuted, is unjust and inhumane. Its goals have nothing to do with public safety or morality; it's all about enriching the prison-industrial complex, empowering increasingly militarized and hyper-aggressive police forces, and protecting Big Pharma from safe, natural, and cheap competition. The drug warriors should be the ones apologizing to US."

But what kind of message does this send to THE CHILDREN?!?

"1. FUCK the children. Not literally, of course, that's disgusting. But it's not their world, it's ours. That's why we're the grown-ups. We get to do things that are totally inappropriate for kids, like drink, screw, and stay up past 10 PM. Isn't that why we put up with the horrors of puberty, adolescence, and high school? To reap the rewards later? Or was it all just to work in corporate cubicles, pay taxes, and take on a mortgage?

"2. The most important thing to teach children is the capacity to think critically for themselves. I've thought about the reasons for marijuana prohibition and found them wanting. Actually, no - 'utter bullshit' would be more fitting. And since I also believe that self-ownership is inviolable, and that there are higher virtues than passive obedience to unjust laws (which are often but the tyrant's will), I have nothing to apologize or be forgiven for.

"Ultimately, the message it sends to children is that they are endowed by their Creator with the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. How they choose to exercise those rights, so long as they don't hurt anyone else, is up to THEM."

Seems like a message a 'free country' could get behind, right? But no, of course I'm being naive. No celebrity will put millions on the line in order to defend such silly, antiquated notions as freedom, self-ownership, and independent thought. Too bad.

Read more:

"Why Condemn Phelps, When We Ought to Condemn the Laws That Brand Him a Criminal" [LRC.com]
"Phelps Takes a Hit" [Washington Post]
"Michael Phelps And His Bong - We've All Gone To Pot" [CNBC.com]
"Michael Phelps' Marijuana Use Puts Focus on Debate Over the Drug" [LA Times]

And finally, "Really?!? With Seth Meyers of SNL":

Bibby Did a Bad, Bad Thing

2009-01-27T23:57:00.002-05:00

Heat 95, Hawks 79.

Pee-yoo, what a stinker. The effort was certainly ugly from a team standpoint: 27 first half points, 7 total team assists, and 19 turnovers. Eww. But on a night when so much went wrong for the team, point guard Mike Bibby deserves special mention.

As stat guy for the Hawks and Thrashers, I often dig up interesting nuggets that (for obvious reasons) we could never publish on the video board. Obviously, we're trying to pump up the team and its fans, so only positive graphics get keyed. This is as it should be. But it's worth mentioning - even if we can't in a more visible forum - that Mike Bibby had the single worst game of his 11-year NBA career last night.

Going by John Hollinger's "Game Score" stat, which aggregates a player's single game box score into one tidy metric, Bibby's line of 2 points on 1-6 FG, 0-3 FT, 0 assists and 5 turnovers in 32 minutes equals a Game Score of -5.5.

(For those interested in how Game Score is calculated, the formula is PTS + 0.4 * FG - 0.7 * FGA - 0.4*(FTA - FT) + 0.7 * ORB + 0.3 * DRB + STL + 0.7 * AST + 0.7 * BLK - 0.4 * PF - TOV. )

How bad is a Game Score of -5.5? Put it this way: the infamous gag job by the Knicks' John Starks in Game 7 of the '94 Finals (8 points, 2-18 FG, 0-11 3FG (!), 2 reb, 2 assts) works out to -3.4. Ouch.

So yeah, Bibby had a rough outing. 767 games over 11 terrific seasons, and there's a single number that objectively states, "yup, that was pretty much your worst day at the office ever".

And...now you know.

New Flavor Suggestions for Ben & Jerry's

2009-01-11T23:11:00.000-05:00

Clever Redditors + puns + ice cream = HILARITY:

"Write this joke: Ben & Jerry's create "Yes Pecan!" ice cream flavor for Obama. For George W. they created__________."

"Cluster Fudge," "Iraqi Road" and "Heckuva Job Brownie" are genius. But my favorite - by far - is "Good Riddance You Lousy Motherfucker...Swirl." Mmm, that sounds tasty.

Even As A Steely Dan Fan, I Can Appreciate This

2008-11-26T23:11:00.002-05:00

The Onion pokes fun at Donald Fagen and the notoriously esoteric Steely Dan.

Not Even Veterans Day Is Sacred Around Here

2008-11-11T23:11:00.004-05:00

Since I'm feeling more misanthropic than usual today - and let's face it, that's the only reason anyone ever visits this blog - I'm taking the time to actually dissent on today's lovefest for the military and its servicemen and women. Yes, I'm actually going to find fault with Veteran's Day. Who's with me?!?

[Rubs hands with glee, twists imaginary handlebar mustache]

Veteran's Day used to be called "Armistice Day," which was conceived as a "a day to be dedicated to the cause of world peace." But this notion was swept aside in the midst of Cold War hysteria, and in the last 50 years or so the day has evolved into a quasi-religious celebration of militarism.

It's no surprise that the Donkeyfister-in-Chief paid tribute to war veterans by stating that it is "a moral obligation" (!) to support them and their families - which is another way of saying that we must support the executive dictator and whatever aggression he may provoke.

But what is unsettling is that even civil society now parrots the state's command to worship and sanctify the soldier. Don't believe me? From the Atlanta Thrashers and the rest of the NHL to my own employer, everyone's on board with the program. Our CEO issued this e-mail message today:

A Special Veterans Day message from [CEO]
11/11/2008

Ninety years ago today, guns fell silent in Europe and World War I fighting came to an end as an armistice between the Allied Nations and Germany went into effect on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month.

President Wilson proclaimed Nov. 11 as the first commemoration of Armistice Day (now called Veterans Day) in 1919 with the following words, "To us in America, the reflections of this day will be filled with solemn pride in the heroism of those who died in the country's service...".

Today, we salute the men and women who have served and currently serve in our armed forces. I hope that you will join me in thanking them, especially veterans we are lucky enough to also call co-workers and the 46 [company] employees currently in active military service, for their contribution and their sacrifice.

As we honor and give our appreciation to those who have served or are serving in our armed forces, let's continue our commitment to excellence - on the job and in our communities.

Thank you for all that you do for [company], and please stay safe.

This is utterly crazy - but thankfully some brilliant voices are being raised in protest.

Check out this blog, posted by Lew Rockwell from an e-mail by Phil Hensley:

On a day like today it is important to be thankful for all the freedoms we enjoy in this country:

In America, we enjoy the freedom of giving half our income to the government through various forms of taxes. We have the freedom to participate in a Ponzi scheme known as Social Security. We have the freedom to vote for the president. Unlike the voters of Iraq under Saddam Hussein, who only had one choice for president, we have two choices! We have the freedom to choose between Republican-led big government programs and Democrat-led big government programs. We have the freedom to use government-controlled money, which loses value every year. We have the freedom to subsidize the poltically-connected agricultural, automotive, and banking industries. We have the freedom of sending children through the compusory government-run education system, and then pay for job training for those that get through 12 years of schooling and still don't know how to do anything. We have the freedom to own guns, provided that said gun is approved by the government and we pass the government-mandated background check. If we get the appropriate permits and stand in then proper free-speech zone, we have the freedom to protest.

Thanks to all the veterans that defended these freedoms and kept them from being taken away!

I first encountered William Jennings Bryan's "The Paralyzing Influence of Imperialism" in the indispensable volume "We Who Dared to Say No to War." WJB delivered these remarks at the Democratic National Convention in 1900. His words are equally relevant today:

A large standing army is not only a pecuniary burden to the people and, if accompanied by compulsory service, a constant source of irritation but it is even a menace to a republican form of government. The army is the personification of force, and militarism will inevitably change the ideals of the people and turn the thoughts of our young men from the arts of peace to the science of war. The government which relies for its defense upon its citizens is more likely to be just than one which has at call a large body of professional soldiers.

A small standing army and a well-equipped and well-disciplined state militia are sufficient at ordinary times, and in an emergency the nation should in the future as in the past place its dependence upon the volunteers who come from all occupations at their country's call and return to productive labor when their services are no longer required - men who fight when the country needs fighters and work when the country needs workers. . . .

(See also "An Open Letter to My Fellow Veterans" by Camillo "Mac" Bica.)

The late Bill Hicks offers the perfect anti-tribute to soldiers:

And finally, perhaps "Flight of the Conchords" say it best:

If every soldier in the wo-orld
Put down his weapon and picked up a woman
What a peaceful world this world would be-eee...
Redheads not warheads
Blondes not bombs
We're talkin' about brunettes not fighter jets
Oooh Oooh it's got to be Sweet 16's not M-16's
When will the governments realize it's got to be funky sexy ladies?

So, yeah. Don't support the troops. Don't support institutionalized slaughter. Think for yourself. Happy Armistice Day. Peace.

Meet the New Boss. Same As the Old Boss.

2008-11-06T00:12:00.001-05:00

So, Barack Obama - the candidate whose watchwords on the campaign trail were Hope! and Change! - won. In the Orwellian parlance of modern statecraft, this of course means that Obama:

Won't end the occupation of Iraq and bring the troops home immediately.
Won't endorse a foreign policy of nonintervention.
Won't shut down Guantanamo Bay and end the practice of indefinite detentions without trial.
Won't encourage Congress - a Democratic majority - to repeal the USA PATRIOT Act.
Won't close the 120 American military bases scattered about the world.
Won't abolish the Federal Reserve or repudiate the institution of central banking.
Won't end the pointless, immoral and destructive War on Drugs.

Yep. Breathe it in, America. Hope. Change. Democracy.

Welfare for Wall Street Denied!

2008-09-29T23:11:00.001-04:00

Victory may be temporary, but the House finally did something right by rejecting the awful bailout proposal backed by President Bush. Hooray for common sense!

The government counts on the average citizen not understanding the particulars of these stupid deals, but it's not that complicated. The article really clarifies what this is all about:

The legislation would have given Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson broad authority to buy troubled assets from financial companies to help ease a lending crunch triggered by the decline of the housing market.

The assets are "troubled" because they're worthless! Why should taxpayer money be used to buy up worthless debt? The government should not be in the business of propping up and subsidizing failure - that's a surefire way to guarantee more of it. Any why ease a "lending crunch?" Lending is the same thing as credit, which of course is someone else's debt. Since when is debt considered a good thing? This nation needs to learn how to save money and live within its means.

Here's another consideration. This $700 BILLION proposed for Wall Street's bailout: where do you think this money comes from? The government doesn't produce anything, so it has to raise the cash somehow. Well, the thieves have three options: steal it from taxpayers, borrow it from foreign banks, or - the option they nearly always choose - print up new currency via the Federal Reserve. It doesn't take an economist to see these options are really, really shitty. This financial mess was spurred, in fact, by printing money and flooding the markets with cheap credit. But this is what creates the bubble, that illusion of prosperity. Congress should repudiate the "bailout" once and for all, which will just postpone the inevitable day of reckoning. They can try to pass a bailout package but they cannot repeal the laws of economics.

For a solid understanding of these issues - which are not so esoteric as the establishment would have you believe - the LRC Recession Reader is indispensable reading. Check it out, and let's savor the bailout's defeat!

GA Governor Ensures Gas Shortage to Continue

2008-09-28T23:58:00.003-04:00

Mark Anderson does a wonderful job explaining how Georgia's moronic anti-gouging regulations - stubbornly enforced by cracker asshole Governor Perdue - are a major cause of the ridiculous 1970's-esque gas shortages that are plaguing Atlanta motorists.

I quite agree. And I know this will be outrageously pretentious, but I called it on this very blog, three years ago:

Sonny Perdue's grandstanding will only harm Georgia consumers in the long run. It's hard to believe that gas retailers are "gouging" consumers when people lose their minds and willingly pay high prices. Caveat emptor and all. Just yesterday at work, several people literally ran out of the building to go fill up their tanks. By falling for rumors about dry pumps and skyrocketing gas prices, people helped to ensure that these dire predictions came true. The smart thing to do was stick with normal fueling habits, maybe conserve a little, and just wait it out.

Personally, I don't understand what's "moral" about punishing voluntary exchange. Ask yourself which is worse: having to pay $4.00+ per gallon for gas, or not being able to buy any at all? This is no false choice: Perdue's punitive measures will reward poor consumption habits and cause shortages in the future. This is political opportunism masquerading as consumer protection. And that's way more immoral to me than so-called gouging. [9/1/05]

That was pretty spot-on, no? Especially since it's painfully clear that Sonny Perdue knows fuck-all about basic economics, and learned NOTHING from the episodes of 2005. If that ruddy-faced goober would just step aside and let the market correct the problem, we might all be able to get gas, instead of jamming Atlanta's busy streets and wasting hours in line.

Next time can we please listen to the economists instead of the politicians? PLEASE?

***UPDATE 9/29/08***
Check out Aaron Bilger's incredibly lucid article about this on LRC today. Well worth a read.

"That's how we know we're alive: we're wrong."

2008-09-23T22:56:00.001-04:00

The passage below, from Philip Roth's "American Pastoral," is too beautiful not to share:

You fight your superficiality, your shallowness, so as to try to come at people without unreal expectations, without an overload of bias or hope or arrogance, as untanklike as you can be, sans cannon and machine guns and steel plating half a foot thick; you come at them unmenacingly on your own ten toes instead of tearing up the turf with your caterpillar treads, take them on with an open mind, as equals, man to man, as we used to say, and yet you never fail to get them wrong. You might as well have the brain of a tank. You get them wrong before you meet them, while you're anticipating meeting them; you get them wrong while you're with them; and then you go home to tell somebody else about the meeting and you get them all wrong again. Since the same generally goes for them with you, the whole thing is really a dazzling illusion empty of all perception, an astonishing farce of misperception. And yet what are we to do about this terribly significant business of other people, which gets bled of the significance we think it has and takes on instead a significance that is ludicrous, so ill-equipped are we all to envision one another's interior workings and invisible aims? Is everyone to go off and lock the door and sit secluded like the lonely writers do, in a soundproof cell, summoning people out of words and then proposing that these word people are closer to the real thing than the real people that we mangle with our ignorance every day? The fact remains that getting people right is not what living is all about anyway. It's getting them wrong that is living, getting them wrong and wrong and wrong and then, on careful reconsideration, getting them wrong again. That's how we know we're alive: we're wrong. Maybe the best thing would be to forget being right or wrong about people and just go along for the ride. But if you can do that - well, lucky you. (p. 35)

I love that. Isn't it beautiful? And so mind-bendingly true?

Paulson and Bernanke: FAIL

2008-09-23T22:01:00.000-04:00

Heroic!

h/t to reddit

Media Keeps Flunking Economics, Rothbard Spins in His Grave

2008-07-19T23:04:00.001-04:00

This article is a textbook example of how the media misrepresents economic issues - whether in this case from ignorance or bias, I don't know. Author David J. Lynch's Keynesian assumptions simmer beneath the surface of the whole article, so I'm leaning toward the latter.

Consider the conclusion. Because Lynch writes this without irony or criticism, we must conclude he silently approves of the implications:

One thing is clear: Government involvement in the financial system is expanding in ways that even the most fervent socialist could only have imagined one year ago. This week's federal proposal to help mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, including opening the door to future government ownership stakes in the firms, is an "earthshaking event," Rogoff says.

And not an isolated one. It comes after the Federal Reserve has stretched its legal mandate and found creative ways to grease the financial system's levers. In March, the Fed midwived the sale of investment bank Bear Stearns to rival JPMorgan Chase in a bid to head off broader problems.

An era marked by regulators' light touch is at an end. "The system got carried away with financial innovation or financial engineering," El-Erian says. "Regulators didn't recognize how quickly things were moving. Now they're catching up."

"Regulators' light touch"? Really?

Our present economic turmoil is all down to the Fed's habit of cutting interest rates to unsustainable levels and inflating the money supply with reckless abandon! There is a clear cause and effect relationship between the government's manipulation of money and credit, and the booms and busts that ensue.

The Austrian theory of the business cycle was put forth years ago, and its message is as urgent as ever. If you're curious about the real reasons for our economic mess, please see the following:

Economic Depressions: Their Cause and Cure by Murray N. Rothbard
What Has Government Done to Our Money? by Murray N. Rothbard
Grand Theft Society by Llewellyn H. Rockwell
Get Out of The Way by Anthony Gregory
Fannie, Freddie, and a Primer in Finance by William L. Anderson

Here's what bothers me about Lynch's article. USA Today is as mainstream as it gets. Articles like this are written every day, yet inevitably a false choice is presented: this much regulation, or that much. The underlying assumptions of Keynesian planning are never questioned. It is time to question them.

Forgive the length (as well as any copyright issues), but I'll close by quoting from the "Money" chapter of Congressman Ron Paul's "The Revolution: A Manifesto." These passages are worth quoting in full:

Central economic planning has been as discredited as any idea can possibly be. But even though we point to our devotion to the free market, at the same time we centrally plan our monetary system, the very heart of the economy. Americans must reject the notion that one man, whether Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, or any other chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, can know what the proper money supply and interest rates ought to be. Only the market can determine that. Americans must learn this lesson if we want to avoid continuous and deeper recessions and to get the economy growing in a healthy and sustainable fashion. [p. 147]

[...]

For over a hundred years, the money issue has been absent from our political process. No political campaign has focused on it or even said much of anything about it. For most people, in fact, the Fed is a complete mystery, its operations incomprehensible. That seems to be just the way the Fed likes it. We are supposed to be bored by it. We are supposed to treat it as a given, like the air we breathe. We are supposed to have confidence in it - surely the experts who run our monetary system for us (and who of course have a vested interest in perpetuating the system we now have) couldn't be giving us bad advice! But point to it as the source of our eroding standard of living, the ravages of the boom-bust business cycle, and the financial bubbles that have ruined countless Americans? That is simply not to be found anywhere along the spectrum of allowable opinion in America. [p. 154]

[...]

Tinkering here and there is not the solution, but as I've said, it is the only proposal Americans are permitted to hear. It is long past time that we begin asking fundamental questions rather than trivial ones, that we educate the people rather than distract or confuse them. Simply trying to patch up monetary problems after they've occurred, whether it is the NASDAQ bubble or the housing bubble, neglects to treat the root of the problem and must therefore fail. We cannot solve the problems of inflation with more inflation. We need to ask: How did we get here? What causes these bubbles? Financial bubbles simply happen, the political establishment tells us; these bubbles are an unfortunate but inevitable side effect of a market economy. This is nonsense. But it is convenient nonsense for some people, and that's why it gets repeated so often. It gives the perpetrators of the financial debacle that now confronts us a chance to get off the hook. We shouldn't let them. [p. 156]

Dissenting on the Tim Russert Elegy-Fest

2008-06-22T22:56:00.003-04:00

Like many, I was surprised to learn that NBC's Tim Russert had died on Friday, 6/13. He seemed a decent enough man but I did not share in the media's outpouring of grief. Russert was an establishment mouthpiece through and through. No doubt he'll be missed by his loved ones and many admirers, but don't forget how he protected the powerful and acted the Smithers to the establishment's Burns.

Dick Cheney and Tim Russert on the set of "Meet the Press"

Herewith, a roundup of the best critiques of Russert and the cozy media/state union he represented:

The Messenger is the Message by Butler Shaffer
"The message machine owners – subdivided into various radio/television networks and print media who, nonetheless have a shared interest in the message content – hire the "journalists," commentators, and others, to write and deliver the agreed-upon script. It is into this class of people that Tim Russert – along with other members of the fraternity who now lament his passing – was accepted by the owners. He was safe for their purposes, not the sort of person to ask unsettling questions. One major media source referred to him as 'a towering figure in American journalism.' If such words were intended to acknowledge only that Russert was held in high regard by fellow disseminators of what is to the interest of the establishment to have the public believe, it is probably correct. If we are asked to believe, however, that he represented the kind of critical, journalistic inquiry that troubled the minds of the powerful, I strongly disagree."

Enough Already! by Justin Raimondo
"It wasn't just his sycophancy in the presence of power that motivates my little exercise in Russert revisionism – it's what was clearly his vehement hostility to anyone who challenged the status quo in any way and sought to provide an antidote to the Dick Cheneys of this world."

A Sinner's View of Tim Russert's Passing by Marc Cooper
"Indeed, without unfailingly pulling that last punch, Russert knew very well that he would risk excommunication from the Inner Sanctum of the Beltway. A harder landing for his guests could dry up that most cherished of press commodities: access and kinship with the powerful. That’s how Russert began his career, as a shrewd, smart political operative — a role he never really outgrew. Till the end, his temperament, his disposition and ambition positioned him to be a much, much better source than an actual reporter. When I go, I also want oodles of uncritical praise — but not from the subjects of my reporting."

Fuhrerprincip by Lew Rockwell
"Cable TV has been obsessed with [Russert] since his death. Time Magazine, we are reminded again and again, named him one of the 100 most powerful people in America, that is, one of the people most powerfully serving and advancing the state and the power elite. Of course, cable figures also lionize him because it enhances, or so they think, their own bloated sense of self-importance.

"We are also told that Russert asked tough questions of politicians. What a joke. He acted like their butler or valet--with one exception. When Russert interviewed Ron Paul, he was incredibly hostile, made lying insinuations, gave Ron almost no time to answer, and, in general, acted like a member of the Capitol Hill-neocon thugbund.

"Perhaps Russert, in confronting a genuine man of peace, felt guilty for his Bushian propaganda for war on Iraq, and the blood on his hands. The perpetually embedded journalist's body language was crabbed, and he never looked Ron in the eye."

(h/t to LRC for all links)

Great News! Hey, Wait a Second...

2008-06-20T00:19:00.003-04:00

Hey everybody! Did you hear the news?

Atlanta Hawks head coach Mike Woodson resigned!

...

Wait, what's that?

Oh.

Mike Woodson Re-Signs.

Fucking hyphen.

One Way Colin Cowherd Could Make the World a Better Place

2008-06-20T00:14:00.002-04:00

I had the singular displeasure of tuning in to ESPN Radio's Colin Cowherd the other day. It took a mere three minutes of unbridled idiocy to get me scrambling for the volume control. After a few moments of silence I realized I was still absentmindedly twisting the knob leftward, sparking this insight:

By turning down my radio's volume, I was expressing the hope that the knob was somehow imbued with the magical power of imposing negative silence on Schrutebag. Not only did I hope he could emit no sound whatsoever, but with each twist of my volume control I wished his every attempt at speech would emit negative decibel levels - so that by opening his mouth he would actually muffle and absorb other irritating sounds - thereby making the world a quieter, gentler and, yes, saner place.

Boston Be Not Proud

2008-05-06T01:11:00.001-04:00

Shit, has it been that long? It has.

Frankly, I've been caught in the vise grip of ennui for awhile, and it took a playoff run by the Atlanta Hawks (the Hawks!) to inspire me. I've witnessed nearly every Hawks home game since the start of 2006-07, and had anyone told me they'd push the mighty Celtics to Game 7 - before bowing out in the most ignominious cock-punching imaginable - I'd have wondered who dosed my cheese grits.

Of course, the Celtics were better. Their stars were more experienced. Their coaching was better. Their bench was deeper. Their defense was stouter. Their offense used such daring weapons as "high screens", "picks and rolls," "penetrations and kick-outs for open jumpers," and so on. Of course they eventually won, and won huge, as well they should have. When you look at the particulars of the series, the burning question is: how did the Hawks (the Hawks!) manage to win three games???

Yes, the young Hawks fed off the emotions of the home crowd, and much has been made of it. But what we witnessed in Atlanta represented so much more. This Hawks team represented the culmination of hope. We saw in this Hawks team a reason to care again: that youth, determination and, yes, faith could be rewarded. Over the years we patiently endured listless efforts, mounting losses, missed opportunities, and countless barbs. But what the Hawks improbably did in Games 3, 4, and 6 inspired all that cliched crap that makes us love sports: along the way they gave us redemption, genuine surprise, and unbridled joy.

Those of us who have been around all along understand. During Game 1 of the Thrashers playoffs last year, I watched as the Philips crowd shamefully booed the Hawks players shown on the video board. The players seemed embarrassed but endured it quietly. I was angry. How anyone could boo those guys - who busted their rears, cared so much, and showed slow yet steady improvement - was a mystery. Corny as it sounds, watching this team turn the boos into raucous cheers makes me feel almost like a proud parent. Our little Hawklings are all growns up!

Of all the images I'll take from this series, perhaps the most indelible came near the bitter end: Rajon Rondo raced downcourt for a fastbreak layup only to get the WWE treatment from Marvin Williams (!). Now, I don't condone Marvin's actions, but I do think it came off far dirtier than Marvin intended. However, what Marvin did symbolized everything the Hawks had to do to reach Game 7 - not just in this postseason, but in every game since the 13-69 season of 2004-05. That outburst of angry pride from the team's most gentle, laid back player sent a clear message: this Hawks team was no longer content to be a pushover or laughingstock. The Hawks needed to get tougher, and they did.

A quick word to the Celtics: eff you. Eff you right in the goddamn ear. What a bunch of spoiled, preening children. The snarling, throat-slashing, chest-thumping, and gang symbol histrionics - give me a fucking break. Their behavior is unbecoming of a franchise with such a storied history, and the lofty expectations to make more of it. Remember, Boston's "Big Three" played for teams that went a combined 87-159 in 2006-07. Then these nouveau riche douchebags win 66 games together and they act like lotto winners at a country club. How anyone could mistake their obnoxious self-congratulation for an authentic expression of intensity is beyond me.

"Law Is Often But the Tyrant's Will"

2008-02-16T19:00:00.001-05:00

Consider Thomas Jefferson's famous definition of individual liberty...

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

...while reading about President Bush's intention to veto the Senate ban on waterboarding [bold emphasis mine]:

Earlier, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the president would veto the measure because "the United States needs the ability to interrogate effectively, within the law, captured Al-Qaeda terrorists."

Democratic New York Senator Charles Schumer said that if Bush "vetoes intelligence authorization, he will be voting in favor of waterboarding."

Asked by a reporter if Bush, who leaves office in 2009, would be labeled as the first US president who favored torture, Perino rejected the assertion and dismissed Schumer's argument as "simplistic."

"Across the board people will see, over time, that this was a president who put in place tools to protect the country against terrorists," Perino said.

"The president does not favor torture. The president favors making sure we do all these programs within the law," she said, adding that "all the interrogations that have taken place in this country have been done in a legal way."

[...]

Perino said the United States does not currently use waterboarding, a simulated drowning technique denounced by rights groups as torture, even though the CIA has admitted using the technique in the past.

She reiterated the administration's assertion last week that it would not rule out the use of such techniques in the future. "As we said last week as well, we are not going to talk about what may or may not be lawful in the future."

Perhaps unwittingly, Perino gives away the administration's playbook: if the act is illegal, immoral or otherwise unacceptable, presto! Simply change the law - or the legal definition of "torture" - and go about your dirty business.

Jefferson warned of the dangers of equating the law with justice or fairness; indeed, most laws are incompatible with, and outright hostile to, individual liberty. So it's little surprise that Perino's argument, essentially, is: that which is legal may be done with impunity. And who decides what is legal? The executive dictator, his handpicked jurists, and a supine legislature, of course.

Thus the administration deploys legal positivism to justify torture and oppression. But it's legal and for your own protection, citizen.

Notes from NHL All-Star Weekend 2008

2008-01-28T23:11:00.000-05:00

Full disclosure: I work part-time for the Atlanta Hawks & Thrashers. On game nights I'm up in the Philips Arena control room, working under the umbrella of video production.

Initially I'd been told I probably wouldn't be needed for the 56th NHL All-Star Game, so I made plans to attend the game instead. But less than two weeks ago I learned the NHL wanted an in-house stat guy after all. So what happened? Between Friday afternoon and Sunday night, I spent roughly 32 of 54 hours at Philips Arena preparing for the festivities - and, believe me, my hours were far from the longest among our crew. Our director endured a stretch of three days and only one meal. Despite the frantic conditions, I experienced one of the most memorable weekends of my life.

Herewith, some of the goofier behind-the-scenes highlights, in bullet-point format:

At Friday afternoon's rehearsal, our audio engineer said, "Guys, Milano sighting." Alyssa Milano, co-host of Saturday's Rockin' Skate event, emerged from one of the tunnels for a mic check. A few guys in the control room bolted to the window for a peek; it was the kind of scramble you might expect from someone yelling "Cops!" at a high school party. As it turned out, I was too late. She came out, said "Hello" into the mic, and left. That was it. One guy managed to catch a glimpse of her back, and proclaimed it to look "pretty good."

For Saturday morning's Rockin' Skate event - headlined by Disney Channel favorites the Jonas Brothers - the second commercial to run on the video board was the Bud Light "Dude" spot. Now, this is a funny spot, but it killed me for two reasons:

1) It was 8:10 in the morning. Which isn't too early for a beer if you're forced to sit through the Jonas Brothers, I suppose.

2) The Thrashers won't let anyone under 21 ride the Molson Zamboni between periods, but we can show beer commercials to a crowd of predominantly prepubescent teens. Wait, what?

Saturday afternoon, as we headed down to eat, a bunch of the NHL team mascots tromped among us through the hall. It was like walking into a SportsCenter commercial. One of my colleagues turned to me and said simply, "This is the surreal life, right here." It was hard to argue.

Up in the control room we run a goal pool for every Thrashers home game. The deal is everyone puts in a dollar, you pick the name of one Thrasher player out of a hat, and you win the pot if your guy scores the team's last goal. Last night we ran a special edition: the cost was $5 per player, per conference - $10 to play both conferences - with a best-case payout of $180. I ended up with Shawn Horcoff from Edmonton and Eric Staal from Carolina. Staal was on the bubble until Marc Savard's late game winner, assisted by (who else?) Eric Staal himself. As game MVP, Staal won a new Dodge Journey. As unlucky schmuck knocked off the bubble, I won nothing.

One of my favorite parts of the job is being able to see great camera shots that never make it up on the board. For example, during last night's "Sport Shorts," we caught a glimpse of an enthralled Eastern Conference bench laughing and wincing at the video. They were like a bunch of kids, and we were as entertained by them as they were by the video.

Last night I was exiting Philips Arena with my father-in-law, a Pittsburgh Penguins season ticket holder. He wore a Pens hat and Mario Lemieux jersey - pretty hard to miss if you're associated with the team. Naturally, who comes striding toward us but Penguins defenseman Kris Letang, who played in Saturday's YoungStars game. He shot us a look that said, "Shit, please don't stop me to talk" and kept right on going, prompting this exchange:

Father-in-law: "That was Kris Letang!"
Me: "I can't believe he didn't acknowledge you, what with all the Pens gear."
Father-in-law: "Aw, he's a dick anyway."

Take that, Kris Letang!

All in all, the weekend was sublime. To have attended an All-Star weekend is exhilarating enough, but I'm extremely proud to have participated in such an extraordinary production. Hopefully I'll get to do it again someday.

(Oh, and hopefully these revelations won't get me in trouble.)

Economists Ignore Their Economic Training to Support Edwards

2008-01-18T21:56:00.000-05:00

The implications of this article are really quite astonishing:

Although John Edwards' campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination may be stalling, a group of economists is trying to get it running again.

William Darity, professor of public policy studies, African and African-American studies and economics, joined 33 other economists from various institutions in endorsing a statement that calls the former North Carolina senator the candidate who "has best demonstrated the capacity and the policies to be the next president of the United States."

The group, known as Economists for Edwards, was recruited by James Galbraith, professor of government at the University of Texas at Austin.

Galbraith said he started the group after an article in The New York Times claimed, "[Edwards'] populist bent helps explain why only one high-profile economist... has joined the campaign."

"The important thing was to establish that... I'm not the only guy out there with an economics Ph.D. who [supports Edwards]," he added.

He said the economists who endorsed the statement shared "a willingness to think large on policy questions."

The real clincher comes at the end:

John Herlin, a second-year graduate student in economics, said economic issues are often just one of many factors economists consider when choosing a candidate to support.

"If economists were going to support a presidential candidate based purely on what is taught in economics courses, we would probably all support Ron Paul," he said.

What an astounding (and refreshingly candid) revelation this is! Trained professionals of all kind no doubt consider many factors when choosing a candidate, but here you have economists supporting a candidate whose economics are quite clearly terrible. It's like the atheist supporting an evangelical like Mike Huckabee. What level of cognitive dissonance is required for such a decision?

To understand just how odd it is for credentialed economists to support a socialist like John Edwards, see what Lew Rockwell wrote recently about the importance of economic education as it relates to liberty:

The socialist and the advocate of free markets observe the same facts. But the person with economic knowledge understands their significance and implications. For example, only Ron Paul, of all American public officials, really understands economics. This is why we must never underestimate the central role of teaching about economics. Facts will always be with us. Wisdom, however, must be taught. Achieving a culture-wide understanding of liberty and its implications has never been more important.

William Garrity and James Galbraith are to economics what the 'intelligent design' crowd is to science. These court economists pervert and betray the discipline by cheering the statist Edwards. Supporting a candidate's politics is fine - but it's crossing the line to provide intellectual cover for economic policies you know to be destructive.

Random Thoughts on the Mitchell Report

2007-12-16T23:58:00.000-05:00

So, the Mitchell Report on steroid use in baseball was released last week, and you know what? I don't really give a shit. Seems to me that enough righteous indignation has been wasted on the so-called menace of steroids. I won't even link to the worst offenders; everyone knows how to use Google.

My own thoughts are pretty well summed up by Lew Rockwell:

Murray Rothbard used to say that anyone officially beloved is evil. George Mitchell is certainly in that category. An ex-prosecutor and errand boy for the establishment, ex-Senator Mitchell made heavy use of the state in his rotten report.

Since I know that much of the federal propaganda against other illegal substances is a lie, I do not assume they are telling the truth about steroids. If adult players want to take "performing-enhancing substances," that is their business, and none of the government's.

It can also be baseball's business, but then it is up to MLB to enforce its rules.

In fact, MLB pretty much ignored steroids, which was probably the correct move, until the Christian President made them part of his totalitarian Drug War. I'll never forget Sanctimonious George condemning the immorality of steroids as he was murdering hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq.

Agreed. People get so emotional over the issue of steroids, yet in every discussion I have about this (including one last night), I get the same non-arguments and flimsy contentions. Just to address a few:

1. "Steroids are illegal."
So? That's a statement of fact, to be sure, but not an argument. I'd like to know the following:

a) Why should it be up to MLB to serve as proxy for the state's rotten war on drugs?
b) Which other criminal offenses should MLB feel the need to police?

The problem with the legality argument is that it's circular, in my mind. The prohibitionist crowd has yet to make a convincing argument for banning any substance, let alone steroids, so citing illegality is arguing from a weakened position. First establish that steroids should be illegal, then argue that it logically follows that MLB should prohibit them. Otherwise, you're arguing a tautology: steroids are bad because they're illegal. And steroids are illegal because they're bad.

LSD is also illegal but researchers are exploring its potential to treat a variety of mental disorders. Just because something is illegal doesn't make it ipso facto without medicinal, therapeutic or other value.

2. "Steroid-enhanced performances distort baseball's unique statistical record."
This is perhaps the most fatuous of all the anti-steroid complaints. I've addressed this issue before but it is worth revisiting. Statistics are numerical representations of the historical record, but they are supposed to serve us, not the other way around. As Joe Sheehan has said: "baseball statistics are not numbers generated for their own sake." Yet too many baseball fans treat them as such. Are we to be slaves to the numbers, or will we endeavor to understand their meaning?

To wit: Roger Maris hit more homers in a season than Babe Ruth ever did - but nobody in his right mind argues that Maris was the better hitter. In the last 20 years, Pat Hentgen and Mark Davis each won Cy Young Awards, yet Curt Schilling and Roy Oswalt haven't. Warren Spahn's career high in strikeouts was 191 - a figure surpassed by Mark Langston seven times! Does anyone believe that Mark Langston was more dominant than Warren Spahn?

The point is that context is everything. You have to understand which value judgments the statistical record is making (if any), and when it's just a collection of numbers that make no statement at all.

3. Ballplayers are role models! What kind of message do they send to kids by taking steroids???
Another pointless debate. On a side note, why are athletes held to a higher standard with these kinds of issues? Few people wring their hands when musicians or actors get busted for drugs, yet are they not "role models" to the band geeks and drama weenies of the world?

Anyway, it doesn't matter. This culture's odd conceit that prohibition is the best way to protect children from certain substances causes far more problems than it solves. All that is achieved with prohibition is to create the illusion that some substances are "good" and some are "bad" - and that appetites can therefore be controlled through force alone. The reality is that there are pros and cons with ingesting all kinds of things but prohibition prevents us from confronting these issues honestly. It's no different with steroids. So what kind of message do we send to kids by refusing to acknowledge shades of gray?

4. It's cheating!
Fair enough, and so long as MLB rules say so, I'm not arguing that steroid use is anything otherwise. I just can't bring myself to care that much. To me, this is little different from corking bats, scuffing balls, or stealing signals; it's a private matter to be adjudicated by MLB and its players. Congressional hearings, Mitchell Reports, asterisks...it's all so much bullshit. Cheating ballplayers should be fined and/or suspended, and then everybody move on. Spare me the goddamn moral outrage.

5. Players taking steroids jeopardize everyone by taking jobs from those unwilling to ingest the stuff.
This is the only serious argument that carries any real weight. Truly, it matters on the margins only, where superstars looking for an edge or fringe/utility players seeking a roster spot can benefit. Nonetheless, a "clean" player could get squeezed out by a steroid user of otherwise comparable talents. Doesn't seem fair to ask a player to risk his health in order to win playing time, so I'll cede that one.

CONCLUSION
In the past few years, we've seen alleged steroid users Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens post historical seasons at advanced ages. Here's what I'd like to know: assuming steroids to be the catalyst for these performances, why discourage this? As fans, shouldn't we want more and healthier seasons, and greater performances, from elite athletes?

IF steroids are as powerful as advertised, and IF the health risks can be managed or minimized under a doctor's supervision, and IF the overall benefits can be demonstrated to outweigh the negatives...why not explore the possibilities?

Fenway Park Crowd Restores My Faith In Humanity

2007-11-27T23:32:00.000-05:00

Choose any verb to describe hatred - loathe, despise, detest, abhor, whatever; enhance the sentiment with the modifiers "absolutely" and/or "fucking" preceding - and it still won't adequately convey how I feel about the singing of the national anthem before sporting events. I really hate it.

From reich wing radio to those obnoxious, omnipresent magnetic ribbons, there is enough nationalistic, pseudo-patriotic crap marring every aspect of daily existence; we don't need to pay homage to the almighty state before a frocking ballgame.

ANYWAY. All that said, this video of Fenway Park's "Disability Awareness Day" crowd helping an autistic man through the "Star Spangled Banner" still gave me goosebumps:

[h/t to reddit.]

Is Eric Lindros Hall-Worthy?

2007-11-13T01:11:00.000-05:00

Frequently concussed hockey star Eric Lindros called it quits Thursday after 13 NHL seasons. With the pundits and scribes busy appraising Lindros's career, the popular question has been: is Lindros a Hall of Famer?

Mike Brophy of The Hockey News, for one, is utterly convinced that Lindros belongs. He writes:

I have listened to the criticism Lindros has faced over the years -- that he was too influenced by meddling parents and that he never won the Stanley Cup -- but when I think of Lindros as a player, I think of a powerful game-breaker who was unquestionably one of the most dominant individuals to ever skate in the NHL. I think of a bodychecker who caused opponents to toss and turn all night before they had to play against him, of his lightning-quick release on the best snap shot the game has ever seen, of how he played for Team Canada in the 1991 Canada Cup as a teenager, of his 1994-95 MVP season when he scored 29 goals and 70 points in 46 games.
It was injuries, and nothing more, that hampered what could have been a storybook career. When he was healthy, Lindros was one of the best to ever play hockey. That, and that alone, should be the determining factor when it comes time to consider him for the honor of being inducted into the Hall of Fame. I'm not about to start naming names, but suffice it to say there have been players inducted into the Hall with lesser credentials.
I don't have a vote because I am not on the Hall of Fame selection committee. But if I did, I would not only vote yes, I would debate to the end of the earth with anybody who opposed his inclusion.
It is an argument I do not believe I could lose.

This, in a nutshell, is the problem with modern sportswriting: questionable conclusions based on flimsy, anecdotal, non sequitur arguments.

Well, Mikey, I think this is an argument you could lose. Your watchword should be "doubt." I don't know that Lindros should or should not be in the Hall of Fame, but let's at least examine his credentials and the arguments constructed around them:

THE PRO ARGUMENTS:
1. Lindros averaged 1.14 points per game over 760 NHL games - 17th in NHL history.
2. Major awards: one Hart Trophy (MVP), one Lester B. Pearson Trophy ("Most Outstanding Player"); one First Team NHL All-Star selection (1995); one Second Team NHL All-Star selection (1996).
3. Achievements/Milestones:
a. 4 seasons with 40+ goals
b. 7 seasons with 30+ goals
c. One 100-point season
d. Tied for the league lead in scoring (1995 - lost Art Ross trophy to Jaromir Jagr, who won by virtue of more goals).

Unfortunately for Lindros, some of his achievements also work against him, due to raised expectations:

THE CON ARGUMENTS:
1. Zero 50-goal seasons.
2. Scored 100 points in a season only once.
3. Never led the league in goals.
4. Never lead the league in assists.
5. Selected to only one First All-Star team and only one Second All-Star team.
6. Won only two major trophies.
7. Finished in the Top 10 in scoring just 3 times.
8. His career totals - 372 goals, 493 assists, 865 points - are pedestrian; 92nd all-time in goals, not in Top 100 in assists, 99th all-time in points.
9. After leading the Flyers to the Stanley Cup Finals in 1997, Lindros played in just 10 more playoff games the rest of his career.
10. He never won a Stanley Cup.

Lindros supporters often cite Cam Neely since the two had similarly great, albeit injury-plagued, careers. The argument goes that if Neely's worthy of the Hall, Lindros should be, too. There is some merit to that but the argument's weak.

Neely was terrific at his peak but he's a marginal Hall of Famer. Three 50-goal seasons, four Second All-Star Team selections, a Bill Masterton Trophy in 1994, and a torrid stretch of 176 goals in 216 games (around 65 per 80 games) put him in. That's it, though.

Neely had zero 100-point seasons. He never led the league in goals. He was never a First Team All-Star. Among the Top 100 goal scorers in NHL history, Neely doesn't even rank in the Top 10 in goals per game:

1. Mike Bossy, .762
2. Mario Lemieux, .754
3. Pavel Bure, .623
4. Wayne Gretzky, .601
5. Brett Hull, .584
6. Bobby Hull, .574
7. Tim Kerr, .565
8. Rick Martin, .561
9. Phil Esposito, .559
10. Maurice Richard, .556
11. Cam Neely, .544

Lindros supporters: is Cam Neely really the guy whose coattails you want to ride in on?

The question remains: is Eric Lindros a Hall of Famer? I don't know. It's unfair to penalize him for unrealized potential, especially since injuries held him back more than anything else. The thing about hockey, though, is that value is driven almost as much by perception as it is by numbers. In the end, this might work in Lindros's favor.

The problem, however, is that Lindros will never be perceived in the same light as the best of his contemporaries: Gretzky, Lemieux, Messier, Yzerman, Hull, Jagr, Shanahan, Robitaille, Bourque, Sakic, Forsberg, Stevens, Lidstrom, and so on.

When you think of the greatest players of the last 20 years, is Eric Lindros one of them?

KEVIN DRUM, DINGLEBERRY

2007-11-08T20:19:00.000-05:00

***UPDATE BELOW***

That handsome devil to the left is something named Kevin Drum. He blogged about Ron Paul's record-breaking fundraising day (11/5), and boy, is he ever mad!

RON PAUL, FRUITCAKE....Ron Paul raised a buttload of money yesterday. This doesn't really change anything, and everyone knows it,

Everyone = Kevin Drum, apparently.

but I guess it's something to write about. So people are writing about it.

Some better than others.

But look: can we stop pretending to be political infants, even if we happen to be bored this week? It's cheap and easy to take extreme, uncompromising positions when you have no actual chance of ever putting them into practice, so Paul's extreme, uncompromising positions really don't mean a thing.

If you cannot engage the ideas: smear, dismiss, repeat. Classic.

They don't reflect either well or badly on him. They're meaningless, and I wish grown adults who know better would stop pretending otherwise.

Smear. Dismiss. Repeat. Substance? Optional.

Ditto for his "record breaking" fundraising day, which is just a function of (a) the growth of the internet as a political money machine and (b) the curious but well-known fact that technophiles are disproportionately libertarian.

Oops. I forgot "rationalize."

But I will say this: if Ron Paul really is suddenly a "serious" candidate, then I expect him to start getting some pointed questions at the next debate. In the last Republican debate I saw, this noted truth-teller gave a strange and convoluted answer about his economic policies that the audience plainly didn't understand. Next time I expect to see some straight talk about how we should return to the gold standard and get rid of the Fed. This should be followed by a question about whether he supports the free coinage of silver at 16:1. Then some questions about the tin trust.

Seriously, folks. Can we all please grow up?

You first, Kevin.

Seriously, what a twat. Drum's screed uses up 253 words, yet says...absolutely nothing. What is his point? That Ron Paul's a "fruitcake?" Why? That Dr. Paul has no chance of becoming president? Why not? That it's somehow "unserious" to put any credence into coordinated grassroots efforts? Why? Drum doesn't provide support for a single thing he writes.

Kevin Drum: your blog post, and the "ideas" expressed therein, are so transcendentally terrible that I hereby award you an inaugural "Coxie", named for Dr. Perry Cox from "Scrubs."

Take it away, Per:

***UPDATE***

11/12/2007: Glenn Greenwald has blogged about the smears against Ron Paul - far more eloquently and gentlemanly than yours truly, natch - and cited Drum's crappy blog. Go read it.

Only the Worldwide Leader Could Provide This Kind of Crack Analysis

2007-10-30T00:27:00.000-04:00

ESPN.com is doing an NBA preview, and they've trotted out the usual cavalcade of misfits and would-be oracles to forecast the upcoming season. Of course, I'm most interested in the preview for the Atlanta Hawks, and for sheer nuttiness it doesn't disappoint. Let's see what ESPN's "experts" think:

J. A. Adande, ESPN.com. Prediction: SOUTHEAST: 4 | EAST: 11 Finally a good June night for the Hawks, landing two collegiate winners in Al Horford and Acie Law in the draft. Give them time to figure out how to win in the NBA, and we can talk playoffs next season.

This analysis is sensible and well reasoned. Our journey into Crazy Town commences shortly.

Greg Anthony, ESPN.com. Prediction: SOUTHEAST: 5 | EAST: 15 Last, again. Al Horford's a player, but the organization has too many guys at similar positions. And I don't see enough of a winning mind-set here to get to the next level.

Prerequisites for the Hawks reaching the NBA's next level: finding a low-post presence/scorer, developing an effective point guard, continued growth from the young forwards.

Not a prerequisite for the Hawks reaching the NBA's next level: having enough of a "winning mind-set" to satisfy Greg Anthony.

Jon Barry, ESPN.com. Prediction: SOUTHEAST: 5 | EAST: 14 The Hawks want to run and run, and be the Suns of the East. Hard to do without Steve Nash, but they've got plenty of points to run the show. Good draft with Al Horford and Acie Law IV.

A bit rudimentary (which is the nature of a capsule analysis), but defensible. Barry at least shows an understanding of the team and what made them sporadically successful last year.

Chris Broussard, ESPN Mag. Prediction: SOUTHEAST: 4 | EAST: 11 If Acie Law proves to be nice, the Hawks could take a step forward because they've got great young talent at Positions 2 through 5, with rookie stud Al Horford able to play the 5 if necessary. But until the Hawks actually have success, it's hard to predict anything but underachievement.

Oh, Chris. You started so well. Your first sentence was rational, your second channeled Joe Morgan. Too bad.

Rick Bucher, ESPN Mag. Prediction: SOUTHEAST: 4 | EAST: 12 Eventually, all the talent they've amassed has to have some impact. Right? As nice a get as Acie Law was, though, the linchpin is still Speedy Claxton staying healthy. Which makes for a straw linchpin.

2006-07:

Hawks with Speedy in the lineup: 13-29, .310 win%
Hawks with Speedy wearing the Armani: 17-23, .425 win%

I realize there are problems with this kind of analysis, BUT - it's hard to argue Speedy's the linchpin, especially one that makes the team worse. Not that I necessarily want Anthony Johnson running the point all year, but Speedy didn't exactly tear it up when he did play.

Chad Ford, ESPN.com. Prediction: SOUTHEAST: 2 | EAST: 9 With this much talent, they have to start winning, right? They still have issues at the point (I don't see Acie Law as the answer) but Joe Johnson is an All-Star and Josh Smith, Marvin Williams and Al Horford have that potential. A 38-win season and the playoffs are possibilities.

One of the few reasonable summaries. I think 38 wins is absolutely the baseline for 2007-08.

Jemele Hill, ESPN.com. Prediction: SOUTHEAST: 4 | EAST: 11 A good dark horse to make a surprise playoff run. Al Horford and Acie Law are great additions and let's hope this is the year Marvin Williams shows why he was the No. 2 pick in 2005.

This confuses me. Jemele posits that this team can make a surprise playoff run, yet qualifies it by picking them 11th in the East. Is this hedging your bets, or your way of saying that the race for the last playoff spot in the East will be that close? Please explain.

John Hollinger, ESPN.com. Prediction: SOUTHEAST: 3 | EAST: 7 With last season's injury-ravaged bunch healthy, a rapidly improving young nucleus, and a draft that helped patch their two most important weaknesses, Atlanta looks like this season's playoffs sleeper.

And...there it is! Finally. It took seven capsules before somebody mentioned last year's injuries, which decimated the roster and likely cost the team 5-10 wins. Thank you, John Hollinger. Here's what your colleagues missed:

MAN GAMES LOST TO INJURY:
Joe Johnson, 25 (right calf strain - 4, right calf contusion - 21)
Josh Smith, 10 (hernia surgery)
Marvin Williams, 18 (broken hand - 17, back spasms - 1)
Josh Childress, 27 (sore left foot - 19, stress fracture in right foot - 8)
Tyronn Lue, 25 (knees? back? couldn't find/remember them all)
Salim Stoudamire, 21 (illness, ankle, various maladies)
Speedy Claxton, 40 (knee)
Zaza Pachulia, 10 (Proactiv treatments to shoulders*)

* = may not be accurate

That's eight key contributors who missed double-digits in games! This strikes me as a pretty significant detail, yet only one of ten analysts mentioned it?

Chris Sheridan, ESPN.com. Prediction: SOUTHEAST: 5 | EAST: 15 Wondering what they put in Hollinger's water down at the PER cult in Guyana. He has them making the playoffs, while I have them at 30 wins tops, with 24 wins a more realistic prediction. And here's one more: Mike Woodson is the first coach fired.

Wow.

1) If you're going to make a joke about beverages and Guyana cults, why mention "water" instead of "Kool-Aid"? Isn't that the defining, indelible detail people remember about the Jonestown tragedy?

2) Sheridan writes like someone who didn't watch a single Hawks game last year; either that, or he's too lazy to bother explaining himself. A young, banged-up team managed to win 30 games last year; on what basis would he predict the Hawks to regress to 24?

The team is young, healthy and deeper/more talented than last year. The best player - Joe Johnson - is 26 years old and entering his prime; Josh Smith and Marvin Williams steadily improved over the course of last season. Don't forget: had he not entered the draft, Marvin would be a college senior this year! How many people realize he's younger than either Acie Law or Al Horford? Give this team time to develop and watch out.

Of course they lost their share of games last season, but mixed in were some quality wins at Cleveland, Denver, Minnesota, Phoenix and Golden State. I don't understand how you can just write them off.

3) Chris Sheridan: you have no idea who I am, you've never read this blog (and it's 99% likely you never will) so you'll never see these words, but: if you do, I am willing to bet you that the Hawks will win more than 24 games. Seriously. Name the terms. PLEASE, e-mail me at: jballot1 *at* bellsouth *dot* net. Really.

Marc Stein, ESPN.com. Prediction: SOUTHEAST: 5 | EAST: 13 Horford is impressing people already, but the Hawks need more than yet another young talent -- even if this one gives Kevin Durant a nice run for the ROY trophy -- to halt what now ranks as the league's longest playoff drought.

Fine. Whatever. I'm sleepy.

Just an odd melange here: some insight, and a whole lot of half-baked rhetoric.

(Which, to be fair, probably describes my job of fisking here.)

"Diet and Fat: A Severe Case of Mistaken Consensus"

2007-10-17T17:24:00.000-04:00

Excellent NY Times article about how informational cascading created a false consensus on the dangers of fat. Moral of the story: the prevailing wisdom must always be challenged.

CNN Makes Curious Editorial Choices

2007-10-14T00:44:00.000-04:00

Want an example of how the mainstream media reveals its latent biases? Look no further than the candidate photos on this CNN "Election Center" website.

The frontrunners look happy, smiling, confident (um, except Thompson). The others...well, take a look:

*Al Gore and Newt Gingrich are depicted in black & white, because as everyone knows, no color photographs exist of either man. It's true: these gentlemen refuse to be photographed except in daguerreotype form.

*Christopher Dodd is depicted giving the classic "confused dog" pose:

*Mitt Romney looks like he always does, but I finally figured out who he reminds me of:

Mitt Romney and Christopher Lee as "Dracula" - separated at birth. Open question as to which undead bloodsucker is worse.

*John McCain looks like the guy who just realized he locked his keys in the car:

*Poor Ron Paul looks like a substitute teacher lecturing a group of very bored high schoolers. Not cool, CNN. Not cool at all. On the other hand, kudos for finding one of the few known photos of Sam Brownback not squinting. That couldn't have been easy.

*Finally, the coup de grâce: Duncan Hunter. Now, I'm no fan of Congressman Hunter, but even I wouldn't have picked this picture:

I mean, geez...the guy looks like the victim of a UFIA:

Maybe, instead of some CNN/media conspiracy, the candidates just aren't very photogenic. Who knows? But it seems the MSM is a little too eager to fast-forward to the "inevitable" showdown between Establishment darlings Hillary and Rudy.

Puncturing Reich Wing Radio's Favorite Memes

2007-10-03T23:11:00.000-04:00

No matter which yapping reich winger you listen to - Rush, Hannity, Savage, whoever - you'll find certain themes surfacing again and again. These themes, like much of what these guys have to say, feature heaping helpings of monkey shit. Join me on a journey through the fever swamp of neoconservative talk radio: I listen so you don't have to!

#1:

"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the new HITLER!"

Please. Here, have a wet nap, you're frothing a little. This shameless propaganda is designed to bamboozle us into another pointless war but it doesn't withstand even the slightest scrutiny. Look, I'm not suggesting Ahmadinejad is a swell guy - as a head of state, he's probably a major dick. But the new Hitler? Godwinned!

Lew Rockwell pegs him here:

But the elected Ahmadinejad, though a crazed Keynesian and other things, is no dictator, let alone a totalitarian one. He has far less power than Bush, for example, and is not even commander-in-chief of the Iranian military. And the notion that third-world Iran is a threat to nuclear powers America and Israel is laughable. Of course, so was the notion that Saddam Hussein was going to nuke the Bronx, but the booboisie believed it, thanks to the intellectuals who toed the line.

Exactly. Here are some questions for the neocons spouting this "new Hitler" nonsense:

Would a "new Hitler" meet with a group of rabbis in New York in order to accept the gift of what looks to be, I dunno, a miniature Stanley Cup?
Would a "new Hitler" permit 25,000 Jews to live and worship peacefully in his country?
Would a "new Hitler" actually come off as somewhat rational in an interview with an argumentative Western journalist?

Again, I'm not suggesting Ahmadinejad is a good guy. I'm suggesting that hyperbole is ruining any sense of balance or proportion in the debate. Ahmadinejad has real failings, but enough with the overheated Hitler comparisons. The Nazis aspired to genocide and world domination and very nearly succeeded. Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, is the tinhorn leader of a third world nation that can't possibly threaten the U.S. Where is the validity in the "Hitler" comparisons?

#2:

"Our military servicepeople are heroes! How dare you be so unpatriotic as to criticize their courage and sacrifice! They are above reproach!"

Um, no. They're human, which means - as with any collection of people - they are prone to abuse power and use deadly force indiscriminately. Sometimes they do terrible, terrible things to innocent people. The abuses at Abu Ghraib were terrifying and humiliating experiences for the prisoners; not at all like frat hazing, Rush. The point is that reich-wing radio hosts love the military so much that they'll excuse just about any savagery it commits. But why sanctify the soldier? The training is intended to stamp out humanity and individuality, foment hatred for the "other," and hone the killer instinct. We shouldn't be surprised when soldiers murder, rape, and destroy but that doesn't mean we should defend this.

For the final word and some much needed perspective on the military, we look to one of history's great philosophers, the late Bill Hicks:

The Unbearable Chutzpah of Rudy Giuliani

2007-09-24T23:49:00.000-04:00

In case you missed it, while in London last week Rudy Giuliani proclaimed himself "one of the four or five best known Americans in the world."

That's what so admirable about Rudy: understated modesty, gentlemanly reserve and scholarly appreciation for his place in world history. A real mensch, that one.

Rudy's just being modest, of course, but his refreshing honesty begs the question: who else warrants consideration for best known American throughout the world?

1. George W. Bush.
2. Jared from Subway.
3. Tiger Woods.
4. Paris Hilton.
5. Paris Hilton's dog.
6. Paris Hilton's vagina.
7. Howard Stern.
8. That guy who plays Dwight Schrute from "The Office".
9. Oprah!
10. Jar Jar Binks*

*may not actually be American

Like You Heard an Arlen Tune, Or Bought Yourself a Crazy Hat

2007-09-18T22:14:00.000-04:00

So, you may have noticed the spiffy new banner gracing the top of DIM. Pretty effing sweet, huh? It is not my handiwork, as I have the creative skills of a palsied chimp. No, full credit goes to my friend Wayne, who possesses design skills nonpareil. Check out more of his efforts:

Seduction at 24 Frames per Second

rainydog.net

Kudos and many thanks, Wayne!

Dispatches from Police State USA

2007-09-10T22:49:00.000-04:00

These videos really must be seen (well, heard) to be believed. Here are 13 minutes of petty thuggery courtesy of St. George, MO's "finest."

Part 1:

Part 2:

Bullying, threat making and abusing power: natural outgrowths of our increasingly arrogant and paranoiac police state. Enjoy your so-called freedom.

h/t to reddit.

***UPDATE***

9/12/07: The cop has been suspended without pay.

Also In New Jersey, Pointing Your Finger and Saying 'Bang' Is Manslaughter

2007-09-03T22:44:00.000-04:00

New Jersey Upholds DUI for a Man in Parked Vehicle:

A New Jersey appellate court yesterday upheld the principle that convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) can be imposed on individuals who were not driving. David Montalvo, 36, found this out as he responsibly tried to sleep off his intoxication in his GMC pickup truck while safely stopped in the parking lot of the Market Place Deli on a cold February morning last year. At around 5am he awoke to see a Hamburg Police Department patrolman standing over him. The officer had opened the door of Montalvo's truck to rouse the man and insist that he take a breathalyzer test. Montalvo refused.

He was arrested and forced to make a conditional guilty plea to the charge of DUI, intending to challenge the police officer's actions as a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Montalvo's attorney argued that the patrolman could have no reasonable grounds to suspect that a sleeping man was involved in criminal activity. Montalvo's truck was running, in park, because according to weather records it was about 25 degrees Fahrenheit that Saturday morning.

"From the perspective of the officer on the scene, I don't find at all that what he was doing was unreasonable," Superior Court Judge Thomas Critchley Jr. said in his rejection of Montalvo's argument. "In fact, I find it would have been unreasonable to have stopped his inquiries at any point short of what he did."

The appellate court agreed that the officer was acting reasonably to render assistance to someone who may have been in distress.

"The officer wanted to make sure the driver was 'okay,' nothing was wrong with the businesses and that the truck was operating properly," the appellate decision concluded. "We are convinced that under the facts as observed by Officer Aaronson defendant was lawfully subject to limited inquiry based upon an objectively reasonable exercise of the officer's community caretaking function."

The appellate division affirmed Montalvo's DUI conviction, meaning the sleeping motorist faces a civil remedial fee or "driver responsibility" tax of $3000 in addition to various other fines and fees of at least $1000, plus his legal bills.

Here's what we learn in the Bizzarro-world reasoning of NJ's appellate court:

"Sleeping in a Parked Vehicle" = Driving
"Acting reasonably to render assistance to someone who may have been in distress" = demanding a Breathalyzer test
Courts are nothing more than rubber stamps for terrible legislation
By upholding this conviction, the appellate court creates a huge incentive for drunks who would otherwise sleep it off in their cars to attempt driving home instead. You know, since either way it's "driving under the influence." Way to encourage the very behavior the law was supposed to prevent. Jackasses.

Ballot's First Law of Mornings

2007-09-01T00:55:00.000-04:00

The time it takes your spouse to find the snooze button is inversely proportional to the quality of the song blasting from the clock radio.

Arseblog, Indeed, Is Fuckin' Excellent

2007-08-28T22:55:00.000-04:00

I'm slowly losing interest in mainstream American sports - a topic worthy of its own post at some point - but instead I've somehow managed to pour my faith into Arsenal FC of Barclay's Premier League. You read that correctly: I am a soccer fan now.

When did this happen? My attitude toward soccer had previously been a shrug-worthy "meh" - I appreciated the athleticism and insane passion that the game evoked but never took much notice. Something clicked with me during last year's World Cup and I've been intrigued by the beautiful game ever since.

Why Arsenal? How does a Yank jump on the Gunner bandwagon? Four reasons:

Nick Hornby's "Fever Pitch," as fine a love letter to a sports team as you'll ever find.
The hilarious writing of Deadspin contributor and passionate Arsenal fan David Hirshey.
Tracy's good friend Michelle, a London native and mad supporter of Arsenal. I'm afraid she'd physically hurt me if I rooted for another team. Seriously.
Touring the new Emirates Stadium in London in July. I know longtime fans prefer Highbury but the club is very respectful toward its illustrious history and I couldn't help but be impressed.

In pursuit of this new passion, I discovered some outstanding Arsenal blogs, my favorite of which is "arseblog." Today the arseblogger posted the following:

Ashley Cole is all over the papers today saying Chelsea can be invincible. Invincible cunts. Invincible shite eating, piss drinking, donkey fisting thundercunts. Nobody will ever come close to being as despicable as this Chelsea team. If football goes on for another million years and through the process of evolution a team is made up from hideous mutants who feast on kittens and small babies before making it compulsary [sic] to listen to Phil Collins music 23 out of every 24 hours they still couldn’t be as cunty as Chelsea.

Now that's brilliant.

Great Moments in Pageant Question-Answering...Replies...San Dimas Football Rules!

2007-08-27T00:32:00.000-04:00

This video from the Miss Teen USA pageant, starring Miss South Carolina delivering a nuanced, trenchant answer, has been all over the Internets:

OK...yeah, I know. Wrong answer. Admittedly, it is pretty funny in a cringe-inducing, "Curb Your Enthusiasm" kind of way. But it's easy to mock when you're not the one in the spotlight's harsh glare, being judged by millions of viewers. So I won't pile on this poor girl.

But here's what I want to know: what the fuck kind of question was that? And why are these sorts of opinions being solicited from teenagers? They're the most neurotic, self-absorbed people on the planet.

"Recent polls have shown that one-fifth of Americans can't locate the U.S. on a world map. Why do you think this is?"

How do you answer this ill-considered question without coming off like either a a) colossal asshole, or b) spluttering moron?

The correct answer, of course, is this:

"Well, Aimee, honestly now. How the FUCK should I know? Maybe these 'recent polls' aren't scientific. Maybe this one-fifth represents the blind, the clinically insane, or household plants. The awful truth is that America's educational system has utterly failed in teaching useful life skills or critical thinking, probably from a pitiful combination of politics and neglect. America is home to the fattest, most self-satisfied people on earth. We are teeming with ill-informed and over-opinionated fools. Not only does the one-fifth figure not surprise me, it might be optimistic. Despite all that, what fucking difference does it make in anyone's daily lives to be able to locate the U.S. on a world map?"

Can't blame the girl, can we? Most take pity on the idiot. Nobody likes an asshole.

And when you really think about it, her response was absolutely brilliant. She realized, in that brief instant, the tremendous likelihood of overlap between the geographically wayward and the audience for "Miss Teen USA." Why insult them when it's so easy to make them identify with you! Know your constituency and pander like hell to it. Bravo, Miss South Carolina. Bravo.

***BONUS***

Of course, Miss South Carolina also made me think of this scene from "Billy Madison":

Government to the Terminally Ill: Drop Dead (Literally)

2007-08-08T23:40:00.000-04:00

The government thinks it's better for terminally ill patients to suffer and die rather than take medications that haven't been state approved. Of course we don't own ourselves or our bodies; we belong to the state. Otherwise that would be, you know, freedom. And that's crazy.

[h/t to LRC]

Yes, Joe Morgan Sucks, But People: We're Better Than This

2007-08-04T00:44:00.000-04:00

FIRE JOE MORGAN links a terrific piece flaying Morgan by Phil Mushnick in today's New York Post. Mushnick ably tackles Joe's various crimes against sports fans and mostly I agree with him. However, there's a curious paragraph about Barry Bonds that deserves another look:

For a man given to detailed expert explanations and historical perspectives (few of which make sense or are supported by facts), Morgan has been disinclined to explain how Bonds hit 25 homers at the age of 26 but 73 at the age of 36, 34 at 27 but 46 at 37. At least give it a guess, Joe.

Whoa there, Phil. We're straying into dangerous territory here. Nobody can really explain this. I agree that Joe Morgan is batshit crazy and unworthy of the mantle of baseball "analyst." I agree that Barry Bonds probably exposed himself to massive doses of the same gamma radiation that turned Dr. Bruce Banner into the Hulk. Whatever, I don't care. The point is it's lazy and irresponsible to say that "Bonds hit 25 HR at age 26, and 73 at age 36, ergo...steroids!" C'mon.

Here are a few other historical perspectives. The game changed immensely in the 10 year period in which Bonds' HR totals nearly tripled. Expansion introduced four more pitching staffs into the game - that's roughly 46 pitchers who might otherwise be toiling in the minor leagues. Plus there was a major shift in the way ballparks were conceived and constructed; I don't know that the new parks are objectively easier on hitters than the older ones, but who knows. In 1991 the NL league OPS was .705; by 2001 it had jumped to .749. Clearly the game had changed in those ten years.

Here are still more historical perspectives: Paul Molitor had his career high in HR - 22 - at age 36. Frank Howard hit 91 HR in his ages 26-29 seasons but 172 HR in his ages 30-33 seasons. Luis Gonzalez's HR totals from 1999-2003 go 26, 31, 57, 28, 26. How do we explain all this?

The thing is, we really can't. This is a problem of epistemology. We can take the easy way out and just say "steroids" and go have a beer, or we can concede that reality is far too complex to be explained by conjecture and tenuous links.

Screencap Evidence That ESPN Does, In Fact, Suck

2007-07-30T23:44:00.000-04:00

The self-proclaimed "Worldwide Leader in Sports" has become as painful as gout over the last few years and there are a ton of reasons why. Just a few examples: the idiotic, insulting "Who's Now" promotion. The insistence on foisting sassy "personalities" and contrived debate upon an unsuspecting public. Skip Bayless. Jay Mariotti. Woody Paige. Stuart Scott. Stephen A. Smith. Schrutebag. And don't forget the annoying ESPN Motion player that officiously launches itself whenever ESPN.com is loaded. That's all terrible, true. But what really pissed me off yesterday was unabashed self-promotion.

Here is a screencap from foxsports.com last evening:

And here is a screencap of ESPN.com from the same time:

Seems the networks differ on the day's major stories, no? ESPN put NASCAR and arena football front and center on its page - thereby dictating the newsworthiness of these events to the audience. But it goes unmentioned that ABC/ESPN are broadcast partners with NASCAR and part owners of the Arena Football League. Which is why you see NASCAR and arena football - arena football! - splashed all over ESPN.com. The network is trying to create fan interest, not reflect it.

But who cares, right? It's about creating buzz! It's about cross-promotion! It's about synergy, motherfuckers!

(I'm not saying Fox Sports is above such shenanigans; only that even I'm surprised by how brazen ESPN's become about it.)

I hereby propose a new acronym for ESPN:

Egregious
Self-
Promotion
Network.

[See what I did there?]

21st Century Reefer Madness! Marijuana May Increase Psychosis Risk! This Conclusion Is Total Bullshit!

2007-07-29T00:44:00.000-04:00

Time to call bullshit!

Marijuana may increase psychosis risk, analysis says

LONDON, England (AP) -- Using marijuana seems to increase the chance of becoming psychotic, researchers report in an analysis of past research that reignites the issue of whether pot is dangerous.

The new review suggests that even infrequent use could raise the small but real risk of this serious mental illness by 40 percent.

Doctors have long suspected a connection and say the latest findings underline the need to highlight marijuana's long-term risks. The research, paid for by the British Health Department, is being published Friday in medical journal The Lancet. [READ THE REST]

Sounds compelling, right? But wait - this research was paid for by the British Health Department - a government body with a vested interest in propping up the state's policy of prohibition. The needles of my bullshit detector are starting to twitch...

The researchers said they couldn't prove that marijuana use itself increases the risk of psychosis, a category of several disorders with schizophrenia being the most commonly known.

There could be something else about marijuana users, "like their tendency to use other drugs or certain personality traits, that could be causing the psychoses," Zammit said.

So, correlation is not causation? Thanks, professor. What else ya got?

Dr. Wilson Compton, a senior scientist at the National Institute on Drug Abuse [emphasis added] in Washington, called the study persuasive.

"The strongest case is that there are consistencies across all of the studies," and that the link was seen only with psychoses -- not anxiety, depression or other mental health problems, he said.

Scientists cannot rule out that pre-existing conditions could have led to both marijuana use and later psychoses, he added.

So, people with pre-existing conditions may self-medicate with substances like alcohol and marijuana? You don't say. But wait, it gets better:

Two of the authors of the study were invited experts on the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs Cannabis Review in 2005. Several authors reported being paid to attend drug company-sponsored meetings related to marijuana, and one received consulting fees from companies that make antipsychotic medications.

In other words, these guys are firmly in the pockets of governments and their paymasters in the pharmaceutical industry. Who else benefits from the demonization and prohibition of marijuana? Cui bono?

At least The LA Times report on the study closed on a skeptical note:

Dr. Victor Reus, a psychiatrist at UC San Francisco who was not involved in this study, said he was unconvinced by Zammit's conclusions for both psychotic and mood disorders.

Too many outside factors contribute to the disorders, and the studies Zammit used were too vague to draw hard conclusions, he said.

"There's a limit to what you can do with the data that's in these studies," he said.

Thank you, Dr. Reus. Every time a new study comes out linking marijuana to something bad, you can pretty much disregard it. Seriously. Because it is, inevitably, junk science. These kept "scientists" are actually distorting science in the service of political and pharmaceutical interests, and it's despicable.

If a study is funded or commissioned by a governmental body or the pharmaceutical industry, recalibrate your bullshit detectors, and remember that cannabis has been safely used by humans for literally thousands of years.

[h/t to FARK]

49% of the American Public: Dangerously Misguided

2007-07-26T23:38:00.000-04:00

Someone please explain this country's weird militarism fetish:

49% - Say Military Strength Ensures Peace

Only about half of Americans (49%) now say they think that maintaining military strength is the best way to ensure peace - the lowest percentage in the 20-year history of Pew values surveys and down sharply from the 62% who said so in the summer of 2002, less than a year after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. [READ THE REST]

Orwell would be appalled (though hardly surprised). Nearly half of Americans actually believe War is Peace. Incredible.

And what would the Founders think? Thomas Jefferson -- the principal author of the Declaration of Independence -- was vehemently opposed to standing armies:

"I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for... protection against standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387
"Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people's] freedom and subversive of their quiet." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North's Proposition, 1775. Papers 1:231
"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." --Thomas Jefferson to Chandler Price, 1807. ME 11:160

[h/t to FARK]

UPDATE: Don't miss Justin Raimondo's amazing new piece on militarism as neocon religion (h/t to LRC).

How I Spent My Summer Vacation

2007-07-20T00:57:00.000-04:00

Been quiet here at DIM lately, and for good reason: I've been trotting the globe like Marco Polo for the last three weeks.

The itinerary included:

Eight days in London (6/29 - 7/7)
A very brief weekend in south Florida (7/13 - 7/15)
A four day excursion to lovely Seattle-Tacoma for work (7/16 - 7/19)

Here's a little photoblogging for your Friday work timewasting activities:

Look, kids! Big Ben! Parliament! And some fat bald guy ruining the view.

My adorable niece Olivia hams it up for the camera at Tra's mom's 60th birthday party. My own expression was remarkably similar after the 2nd mojito.

The view from my room at The MarQueen Hotel. Note the gray sky, which lends authenticity to the stereotypical Seattle tableau.

Good times were had by all. Details and more photos to come, and of course more bile shall soon flow over these pages!

Why People Hate the MSM: Neil Cavuto

2007-06-27T00:44:00.000-04:00

Sorry, I don't mean to turn this blog into a 'Ron Paul on YouTube' site, honestly. I post the following video to illustrate why people hate the mainstream media and the way it presents the news, shapes discourse, and subtly slants the debate.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the insufferable Neil Cavuto, interviewing Ron Paul today:

OK, deep breaths.

Calm blue ocean...

OK, I'm good.

Seriously, Neil Cavuto: what is your motherfucking problem?

Let's catalog what's wrong with this "interview":

1. Cavuto takes up nearly 6 minutes of a presidential candidate's time to talk about the motherfucking Brown tax evasion case. Really, there aren't more pressing, bigger picture issues you'd like to inquire of a man running for president? Discussing the Brown situation is fine, I suppose, but how many times can Ron state his positions and then move on? Which leads us to...

2. Cavuto keeps trying to goad Ron into a "gotcha" moment by transparently and egregiously deploying a straw man: "So what you're saying is the Browns are like Gandhi, MLK, Jesus, and Buddha all rolled into one super-deity?" "So you're saying you're against taxes?" This is bullshit for two reasons: one, Cavuto's trying to get a soundbite he knows will play well with Ron's state-media opponents, and two, he frames the question in such a way as to marginalize and dismiss the very position he wants Ron to defend. My GOD, you're against...taxes? We can't have such a debate in this country! When the state plunders its citizens and calls it "taxation," we all agree that's legitimate, right?!? Civil disobedience? In this country? Madness! Sheer madness, I say!

3. If you invite a man to be a guest on your program, at least have enough respect, courtesy, and decency to allow the man to answer your motherfucking questions. Quit interrupting with your manufactured indignation and shallow understanding of the man's convictions. Shut the fuck up and let the man explain himself. You might learn something, asshole.

4. Either Cavuto has cultivated that smarmy, imperious, self-important persona for his program, or he really is that big a douchenozzle. Either way, he's the perfect exemplar of why many people are turning off the mainstream media: we're sick of being condescended to by pompous windbags in expensive suits. We're tired of the "debate" consisting of 6 minutes of badgering in a pitiful attempt to marginalize a good man. We've had it with a media that cares more about ratings than edifying; that focuses increasingly on the likes of Paris Hilton and TomKat instead of actually, you know, questioning things. It's pretty obvious the media dispenses information but not wisdom.

Anyway, back to Neil Cavuto: after watching him in this clip, I'm reminded of the scene from "Good Morning Vietnam" where Robin Williams tells JT Walsh:

"You know, you're in more dire need of a blowjob than any white man in history."

[h/t to LRC]

The Unfree Country Chronicles: "It's meant to be refreshing. It's not meant to be intoxicating."

2007-06-24T12:00:00.000-04:00

The powers that be in this country say that "the terrists hate us for our freedom," so just to be safe, they've decided to do away with both:

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (NEWS CENTER) -- You're not supposed to call them "Beer" popsicles, but government regulators say that's what they are. Now, their investigators are trying to stop an Alexandria restaurant and bar from introducing the adult treats to their patrons.

Chef Frank Morales makes the popsicles by cooking the beer with bits of fruit and a liquid that he calls his secret ingredient.

"It's meant to be refreshing," he says, "It's not meant to be intoxicating."

One restaurant-goer says, "I think it's a great idea! It's refreshing and tasty. You can't go wrong with it."

But Alexandria's Alcoholic Beverage Control regulators say there's plenty wrong. They say beer popsicles are illegal because beer must be served directly from its original container or right from the tap. [READ MORE]

Next in the regulators' crosshairs: beer-battered shrimp. The proprietor of this site may need to go into hiding.

[h/t to FARK]

This Is Awesome

2007-06-21T22:58:00.000-04:00

In a mere 1:31, this brilliant little spoof manages to skewer politicians, pharmaceutical ads, and the drug war with equal precision.

Incarcerex:

h/t to Reason Magazine via reddit

Notes on the Republican Debate, Jackson Pollock-style

2007-06-06T23:11:00.000-04:00

...and by that I mean rendered in haphazard splatters by a bald, and possibly drunk, proprietor. Let's get to it!

*The onstage arrangement of the candidates is pretty dang telling, don't you think? Could CNN be any more transparent about its rooting interests? Front and center: Rudy McRomney. Shunted off to the very edges -- as literal representations of the "fringe" candidates -- are Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul. You suck, CNN.

*Geez, I'm sure glad nobody thought to pose the healthcare questions to the only medical doctor on stage. That would be crazy!

*Duncan Hunter: please, just shut up. He delivers his answers like a junior varsity coach who takes himself and his job a little too seriously. And he had the audacity to suggest that he's more committed to cutting government than any other Republican candidate. Which left Ron Paul supporters feeling like this:

*Mike Huckabee is a fervent believer in creationism. This is weird, because it illustrates how oddball beliefs can become mainstream as long as they're steeped in religious convictions. Look at it this way: if a presidential candidate believed life on earth originated in some space alien's petri dish, and that magic mushrooms were put here deliberately to accelerate our evolution, he'd be labeled a crackpot and summarily dismissed. But are those ideas any more loopy than literal belief in the creation story? Just saying, one idea is acceptable to express in public, the other is not. Ours is a fucked up society.

*Although lacking in fireworks or even much intrigue, this debate was for me a watershed moment, because Rudy Giuliani demonstrated quite plainly why he is unfit to be president. He feels the need to answer EVERY QUESTION even when not given the floor; it's like he loves the sound of his own nasal lisp. I wish that smug, officious, narcissistic, attention-whoring megalomaniac would shut the fuck up already. It's crazy that the totalitarian Rudy has been polling as the frontrunner. The guy seeks to ratchet up the Iraq war, refuses to disavow the insane "nuclear option" against Iran, and intends to foist a national ID card on the people of this country. Utterly insane.

I feel the exact same way whenever you open your piehole, Rudy.

*I'm no supporter of Tom Tancredo's, but he did have the best line of the night: asked what role George W. Bush might play in a Tancredo administration, the latter relayed how his criticism of Dubya's immigration policy led an angry Karl Rove to warn him to "Never darken the door of the White House again." Tancredo said: "I would have to tell George Bush the exact same thing Karl Rove told me." Well played, sir.

*If you slapped a turtleneck and bad mustache on Mitt Romney, he'd look like a bad villain from a 70's cop drama, no? I don't trust that guy AT ALL.

*Winners: war, nuclear options, statism, Wolf Blitzer, 9/11, lightning, pandering, the media, banality.

*Losers: peace, freedom, liberty, Iran, immigration, honesty, puppies, sunshine, the American public.

Ron Paul vs. the Establishment

2007-05-17T22:32:00.000-04:00

Please invest 10 minutes of your day to watch this compilation of Ron Paul's responses from the other night's Republican presidential debate:

Tell me: what was so unreasonable or objectionable in anything he said?

I want you to watch Giuliani's reaction around the 6:09 mark: he's angry, yes, but I see something else in his eyes: fear. Benito Giuliani and the rest of the establishment is afraid of Ron Paul and the truth he speaks. If you don't believe me, check out the desperation spewing from the neocon spin machine:

Condemnation from these authoritarian creeps is the greatest possible endorsement of Dr. Paul's candidacy.

Randomly:

1. Reading the various smears and straw men being perpetrated against Dr. Paul reminds me of Mahatma Ghandi's famous quote:

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."

2. Don't miss two brilliant columns from LRC today:

Ron Paul Said It by Lew Rockwell
Ron Paul Violated the Rules by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

3. Oh, and Rush Limbaugh, John Gibson/Michelle Malkin, FOX News in general and Carl Cameron in particular, and Elisabeth Hasselbeck can all kindly go fuck themselves.

why he's NOT the man

2007-04-30T23:00:00.000-04:00

The other day my friend Adam sent an e-mail with the tantalizing subject header, "why he's the man." Who? WHO is the man? I had to know. But upon opening the e-mail I found only a link to an article about Dennis Kucinich filing impeachment articles against VP/asshole supreme Dick Cheney:

Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich filed articles of impeachment Tuesday against Vice President Dick Cheney, saying his action is driven by a desire to defend Americans' right "to have a government that is honest and peaceful." [BWAHAHAHAHA! --Ed.] [Read more]

Given the options, Kucinich may be the best of a dismal Democratic lot. He has been solid on Iraq and for mostly the right reasons. But he is "a commie" as Lew Rockwell points out and absolutely awful on economic matters. Kucinich's answer for every state-created mess is another government program. The man's faith in the state is unshakeable. Like most politicians, he has zero confidence in the market or in society's ability to manage itself. He's preferable to the soulless harpy Hillary but that's damning with faint praise.

There is only ONE presidential candidate who truly favors freedom and peace. You want to know who the man really is? Look no further than Ron Paul...

Finally, Some Campaign Posters That Tell the Truth

2007-04-19T20:11:00.000-04:00

FARK ran a recent Photoshop contest whose theme was "Convert an old Soviet propaganda poster or mural into a campaign ad for the 2008 U.S. elections." The entries here are incredibly creative and feature a decidedly libertarian bent.

This one's my favorite:

Links:
Inspiration & source material here

FARK Photoshop contest here

passed over

2007-04-02T23:11:00.000-04:00

This year my employer -- a fairly huge, well-known corporation that I decline to name here -- gave out oversized calendars for us carbon blobs to hang in our cubes. Each month highlights a different event or occasion that takes place within that month. It's a nice gesture and the calendar itself features cheerful artwork colored in bright, festive hues. Nice, huh?

So I'm checking out the calendar today in order to brush up on April's featured event: turns out that in Hong Kong they honor the sea goddess Tin Hau every April. According to the calendar:

"Every April, Hong Kong pays tribute to Tin Hau, goddess of the sea. Her birthday is celebrated to bring safety, security, fine weather and full nets during the coming year. There are celebrations at Tin Hau temples in different districts in Hong Kong. Boats are decorated with colorful ribbons praising the goddess for past protection and praying for future luck."

Hey, that's pretty cool. So what else is worthy of commemorating in April, according to my employer's calendar?

Sunday, 4/1: April Fool’s Day, Palm Sunday
Friday, 4/6: Good Friday
Sunday, 4/8: Easter
Sunday, 4/22: Earth Day
Wednesday, 4/25: Administrative Professionals Day

So let's see...we have Tin Hau tributes in Hong Kong, OK. Earth Day -- a little socialist for my tastes, but all right, keep the hippies happy. Administrative Professionals Day...well, that's important, gotta show support for the people who support you, right?

But I can't help but feel that something's missing from the list. Hmmm...what could it be?

Hey, I know: PASSOVER! Only one of the holiest days celebrated by Jews the world over! Think Seder, plagues, matzoh, Charlton Heston -- ring a bell??? It starts TONIGHT, in case anyone was wondering.

Now, I'm the farthest thing from one of those perpetually aggrieved victim types. Many of my people are just looking for perceived slights, insults, and reasons to kvetch -- which dilutes the thankfully few instances of genuine anti-Semitism we may encounter. I point out this omission, which I'm sure was an honest oversight, not to cry anti-Semitism or embarrass my employer but to illustrate how sensitivities seem to have changed.

Seriously, maybe this is a good thing: when corporate America is more paranoid about political and class pressures (freaking Earth Day and Administrative Professionals Day?) than acknowledging holidays of historically persecuted religious minorities, well...I don't know if that's progress but at least they're focusing on something else.

Still, even my Simpsons desk calendar remembered Passover...

it's kind of like an arctic mindbath

2007-02-19T23:49:00.001-05:00

So I finally upgraded to Blogger 2 Electric Boogaloo, and after a little tinkering, toying, and surfing for new templates...I decided to overhaul the whole damn thing.

Questions, comments, and a snarky "you still blog?" or two are welcome...

I hate this tradition

2007-02-04T01:32:00.000-05:00

Bush meets the Hurricanes. Insert your Katrina jokes here.

The Decider took time out of his busy schedule Friday to fete the defending Stanley Cup champion Carolina Hurricanes. Not surprisingly, I loathe this obnoxious tradition:

1. The "honor" of being invited to the White House is just another demand to pay tribute to the Maximum Leader. EVERY TEAM awards the president with a personalized team jersey. It's a nice token but isn't the point of these things to have the president be the one doing the honoring? That teams feel obligated to lavish gifts upon the president makes him seem less presidential and more, I dunno...monarchical? Dictatorial?

2. It's sickening to watch opportunistic politicians bask in the reflected glow of people who have actually achieved something. Especially since sports and politics operate on ethics that are diametric opposites. Athletic competition is the purest realization of American ideals, the ultimate meritocracy -- talent, hard work, and teamwork in pursuit of a common goal are the hallmarks of success. But politics require none of these virtues. Instead, a politician need only convince a majority of the gullible masses that he's the less knavish of two dreadful choices. After that, it's mostly logrolling, Influence peddling, and demagoguery -- not very heroic or inspiring. Small wonder politicians leech onto successful athletes as though the association implies the same qualities for each.

3. The whole display is phony and so much appalling theatre. It is 99.9% probable that Bush watched zero Stanley Cup playoff games and couldn't identify a single Hurricanes player without help from his handlers. So the ceremony is about Bush waxing philosophic, lecturing on virtues he does not himself possess, and making a few disingenuously self-deprecating jokes. While commenting on Carolina's underdog status, he actually said, "I like to be around people who keep expectations low." Right. That's why his reputation behind the scenes as arrogant, bullying, megalomaniacal, and narcissistic is just a misunderstanding, right? Meanwhile, visiting players must be on their best behavior -- listen politely, smile and laugh at the appropriate times, and maintain a comfortably neutral facade. How awful and undignified this encounter must be for any athlete with a conscience!

Enough already. We need separation of sport and state, now!

p.s. This take on the meeting is pretty funny.

Rethinking Public Education

2006-12-18T23:56:00.000-05:00

A clearinghouse post. Some recent critiques of public education from disparate sources:

The "Real" School Is Not Free - A brief history of the (somewhat sinister) roots of public education in the U.S.
'I'm a Saboteur' - 'Fast Company' interview with John Taylor Gatto from 2000. Brilliant.
How the Public School System Crushes Souls - Personal and poignant tale from Steve Olson. No doubt his experiences resonate with untold millions of others.
To fix US schools, panel says, start over - Recent headline from the CS Monitor.

Of course we need separation of school and state. But might we benefit from a complete overhaul of how we think about education? What if the old model of inculcation, testing, and grading faded away?

What do we have to lose?

"It's not totally free enterprise in the United States."

2006-12-11T23:01:00.000-05:00

No shit, huh? You're going to love this story:

In the summer of 2003, shoppers in Southern California began getting a break on the price of milk.

A maverick dairyman named Hein Hettinga started bottling his own milk and selling it for as much as 20 cents a gallon less than the competition, exercising his right to work outside the rigid system that has controlled U.S. milk production for almost 70 years. Soon the effects were rippling through the state, helping to hold down retail prices at supermarkets and warehouse stores.

That was when a coalition of giant milk companies and dairies, along with their congressional allies, decided to crush Hettinga's initiative. For three years, the milk lobby spent millions of dollars on lobbying and campaign contributions and made deals with lawmakers, including incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).

Last March, Congress passed a law reshaping the Western milk market and essentially ending Hettinga's experiment -- all without a single congressional hearing.

This story epitomizes all that is wrong with the "democracy" racket:

Byzantine laws (from the Depression era!) regulating trade in the 21st century global economy? Check!
Lobbyists exercising power and influence to protect inefficient cartels from competition? Check!
Consumers forced to pay higher prices thanks to unethical machinations in DC? Check!
Free market innovations crushed by politics? Check!

I know, big deal, right? It's just one guy and it's only milk. But this is the inevitable result of corporatism - the partnership between the state and big business. These powers profit artificially at everyone else's expense.

Real harm has been inflicted on Hein Hettinga, whose hard work and service to consumers has been punished by the state. Real harm has been done to everyone forced by this parasitic partnership to pay more for milk than what a truly free market would produce.

These state interventions in the marketplace punish resourcefulness, reward greed and corruption, and impoverish society. That's pretty fucking evil, don't you think?

[Link courtesy of reddit]

More:
• 15-farm empire bucks industry [Arizona Daily Star]
• Hein Hettinga/Sarah Farms Official Site [keepmilkpriceslow.org]

Attention Prohibitionists

2006-11-12T23:11:00.000-05:00

I touched on this in my previous post but, over the last few days, I've been thinking a lot about the defeat of the marijuana legalization initiatives in Tuesday's elections. I asked prohibitionists what horrors they would expect to ensue should marijuana become legal. But I can't let it go at that. The more I think about these votes, the angrier I get.

There are many issues that pass the "both sides" test with me -- meaning, I can genuinely see and appreciate both sides of the issue. Though I may not agree with the other side's opinion, I can at least respect it. Issues such as abortion and the death penalty are colored in enough shades of gray to at least make the debate worthwhile. But the issue of drug prohibition and all the misery wrought by the War on Drugs? Sorry, don't get it.

Prohibition is a failure in every way imaginable: nonviolent, harmless people imprisoned, individual rights trampled, militarization of law enforcement, resources wasted, and no discernible benefits: hundreds of billions shoveled at the "problem," and yet interdiction efforts have failed to curtail the drug supply. Nor has demand for drugs been curbed despite the rather clever device of portraying Rachel Leigh Cook bashing the holy shit out of a kitchen.

And so I'd really like to know what went through the minds of the 1,313,617 people in Colorado, Nevada, and South Dakota who voted to keep marijuana prohibition alive. I have some serious questions for the prohibitionists:

1. Why do you expect drug prohibition to work out any differently from this nation's failed experiment in alcohol prohibition? What do you see as the material differences?

2. What benefits are realized by continuing to imprison nonviolent drug offenders?

3. What sea change in enforcement strategy do you anticipate that will lead to "success" where previous efforts have failed?

4. What evidence of prohibition's "effectiveness" leads you to believe the policy ought to be continued?

5. If legalization of marijuana ought not be pursued now, then when? How much longer must the War on Drugs go on before victory or defeat can be acknowledged?

6. How many more people must be imprisoned to make prohibition a "success"? How many more billions of dollars poured into enforcement of drug laws?

7. Given that nearly 80 million Americans admit to having tried marijuana, and that society continues to function despite this, why continue the policy? What's the point?

I could probably think of a million more questions since I'll be angry about this for a long time. What a golden opportunity wasted! Voters had the power to change the course of this nation's despicable drug policy, but no. What a disgrace.

Anyway, I'm interested to hear some answers to my questions. I promise to be civil to anyone willing to discuss his/her vote (or contrary position on the issue).

Yeah, But Democracy Still Sucks

2006-11-08T23:55:00.000-05:00

On the one hand, I share some of Lew Rockwell's glee over the voters' stern rebuke of the dictator Bush and his wars. But let's not pretend the election results represent the dawning of a new age of enlightened anti-statism. Have you seen the results of the ballot measures? Economic idiocy prevailed with the overwhelming approval of all six state referendums on raising the minimum wage. Each of the three measures designed to liberalize marijuana prohibition was soundly defeated. Five of the six measures to ban same-sex marriage were passed, as if this issue is a political matter to be decided by a majority of voters, rather than something to be worked out and compromised upon by free people away from state interference. And so on.

So here we have the natural consequences of democracy: when issues are put to a vote of the people, nothing matters but the will of the mob majority -- not economic law, not individual rights, not even common sense. And so marijuana prohibition will continue unabated, despite the horrific results and abject failure of the government's War on Drugs.

[A serious question for the prohibitionists: if drugs were legalized tomorrow, what horrors do you think would ensue that would make prohibition (despite the obvious failure and blowback) seem preferable by comparison? I'm asking in all seriousness.]

So yeah, if the 2006 mid-term elections can be viewed as a referendum on the merits of Republican dominion, I'm pleased that the people seem to have humbled the imperious Bush. But let's not get all mushy about the wonders of democracy or the "wisdom of the people" or some other civics class bullshit. The mob may have tossed out the last group of bums, but rest assured that the assholes who take their place will be no kinder to the prospects for liberty. With elections, the only certainty is that no matter which party prevails, it is the state that wins.

"Creating the system is the abuse"

2006-10-24T23:11:00.000-04:00

Election season always makes me uneasy. It's when the state really gets all up in your business; it's damn near impossible to avoid all the yard signs, obnoxious campaign commercials, and activists/yentas of all stripes reminding us of the importance of voting! It's all a bit of insanity. Think of Election Day as the Super Bowl for statists, only it's Brit Hume on TV yelling at you instead of Chris Berman.

Anyway, the toughest part for me is having to explain that I don't vote for reasons of principle. Most people just don't get it. "If you don't vote you can't complain!" they say. Please. Those of us who abstain from voting are among the few who have every right to protest. For reasons why, see this eloquent and impassioned defense of non-voting in today's must read column from LRC's Butler Shaffer:

We need to remind ourselves of Albert Einstein’s admonition: “we can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” Trying to reform the political process makes no more sense than trying to reform the carnivorous appetites of jungle beasts. If it is your desire to put an end to the violent, destructive, corrupt, and dysfunctional nature of government, stop wasting your time by focusing on the current management of the system. Rather than dutifully going to the polls to select from a narrow list of options provided you by political interests that you neither know nor control, you might want to inquire into who is providing the cast of characters – and writing the script – for a performance you are expected not only to attend, but to cheer.

To create a system which, by definition, enjoys a legal monopoly on the use of force, and then allow that system to become the judge of its own authority, is an error of such enormity that one can only wonder why grown men and women would be surprised to discover such powers being “abused.” Creating the system is the abuse. Directing our criticism to members of the present cast while overlooking the backers of the play – who have substitute performers waiting in the wings – exceeds the bounds of innocence. It is like placing a bowlful of candy in front of a number of small children, and expecting the candy not to be touched in your absence.

For further reference, visit the Non-Voting Archive at LRC. And don't forget to not vote on November 7th!

"What the FUNGUS?!?"

2006-10-10T23:25:00.000-04:00

Um, wow. I just...I can't...words don't really do this justice, but this clip is:

a) The most unintentionally hilarious sports-related YouTube clip since the "boom goes the dynamite" guy.

b) Approximately 89% funnier because of the inexplicable "Watch the NFL Network, BITCH!" outburst toward the end, and

c) Funniest when I imagine that this is what Michael Medved does with his weekends.

G-d bless the em-effing internet.

[h/t to Deadspin]

"Naked hair brushing, good; naked crouching, bad"

2006-09-26T22:56:00.000-04:00

You might recognize that line from the famous Seinfeld episode "The Apology," which introduced the world to the concept of "good" naked and "bad" naked. Unfortunately, there are some wacky people in Texas who still can't grasp the distinction:

Teacher: reprisals began after field trip

FRISCO – A veteran Frisco art teacher says school administrators have retaliated against her because a student reportedly saw a nude sculpture during a field trip to the Dallas Museum of Art.

District officials say they are supporting a principal who reprimanded Sydney McGee over the field trip and other performance issues.

Oh boy. The anti-porn types and morality crusaders have largely succeeded in smearing over the line that existed between "nudity" and "pornography;" in the public's mind, there is little or no difference. The naked human body, far from representing our simplest biological form, has been co-opted and converted exclusively into a sex object. Viewed from this perspective, it makes sense that some idiots get hysterical over something as natural and innocuous as a nude sculpture.

This weird phenomenon is not new. In 2002, John Ashcroft famously covered up the bare breasted sculpture "Spirit of Justice" in the Great Hall of the Department of Justice -- no small irony there. And before that, there was Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn making an ass of himself by protesting NBC's uncensored broadcast of "Schindler's List," in part because of the full frontal nudity -- a move so asinine that it elicited a rare moment of clarity and reason from Alfonse D'Amato, of all people.

Forget for a moment that we're not even talking about an actual nude human. The kid saw a nude sculpture -- a representation of a nude human. It is disturbing that this would bother anyone, yes, but the greater issue here is the primitive and unhealthy ways in which elements of this culture view nudity.

Roger Ebert famously says that a film should not be judged by its subject matter, but by how it deals with it. Applied here, this sensible view means that the nude human form (as sculpture or otherwise) is not intrinsically sexual -- unless that's the projection and association imposed upon it by the viewer.

Sexuality may imply nudity but the converse is not necessarily true. Context is everything. A naked woman posing suggestively on a bed has sexual connotations; a naked woman straining to open a jar of pickles...not so much. Showing fifth graders the Kama Sutra is inappropriate; showing them Michelangelo's David is not. See the differences?

It should be obvious and yet the distinction is lost on many people. It wouldn't matter so much except that a woman has apparently lost her job because of this shortsightedness. The Philistines are still among us and they are still making headlines.

[thanks to reddit for the link]

Democrats: Yup, Still Pretty Much Rife With Milquetoast-ery

2006-09-18T22:44:00.000-04:00

The Democrats don't respect your intelligence and their party "leaders" have no idea how to attract the so-called middle. Don't believe me? Witness this missive from Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) on The Huffington Blog. Same old Democratic bromides and bogeymen. Same dull rhetoric that blunts the senses and smothers the ardor of even the most strident Bush opponents. How can anyone take this guy seriously?

[Forgive me for once again ripping off the FIRE JOE MORGAN motif, but those guys do an amazing job dismantling neanderthal sportswriting, and I don't see anyone doing the same thing in politics. So, into the vacuum come my own mediocre efforts. Sorry. Sometimes that's just what you get.]

The Congress of the United States has reconvened in Washington, D.C., but don't expect Congress to legislate on behalf of the American people.

Since society can pretty much manage itself without you people, that's OK. As an American myself, I believe I speak for all Americans when I say: thanks, but no need to legislate on our behalf. No, seriously, we're good.

The Republican Party will spend the next 30 days trying to make you afraid. It is the Republican midterm election strategy.

Yes, and one that your party did a rather poor job of countervailing in both 2002 and 2004, if you don't mind my saying so.

For the rest of September, until the moment Republican leaders gavel the Congress into adjournment, Republican speakers will rise and implore the American people to be afraid.

Republicans will call it security, and every time they do, just remember they are speaking in code. Republicans really mean insecurity.

During September, Republicans will wield the gavel, but they will not make America safer.

We will not consider, much less pass, legislation to better protect our ports.

Jimmy. Bubelah. Legislation does not make us safer. Since freedom is the natural state of things, legislation is nearly always designed to empower the state. Legislation prescribes the boundaries of licit behavior and the punishments for when those boundaries are transgressed, but it cannot make us safer. Really, most of the time legislation just turns peaceful, consensual activities into crimes. Given the staggering number of people the U.S. incarcerates, it can scarcely be argued that legislation functions as any kind of deterrent.

We know what needs to be done, but Republicans are hard on rhetoric and soft on action.

Republicans are going to use their insecure code word so often that I hope Lou Dobbs, Jon Stewart, and others keep track, and remind people daily of how often Republicans are willing to talk, and how little they are willing to act.

Considering that when Republicans act, people tend to get bombed, spied upon, or tortured, this is all to the good. Seriously, I prefer politicians who are unwilling to act, unless they're repealing something.

After America was attacked on 9/11, the finest military on earth--- the United States Armed Forces---

"We support the troops! We support the troops!"

was sent to Afghanistan to hunt down bin Laden and stop the Taliban. They did a magnificent job until U.S. soldiers were ordered to leave before the job was done. We don't have bin Laden and Afghanistan is looking more like Iraq every hour.

A Republican Administration is responsible for diverting our military, draining our treasury, destroying our credibility, and making America less safe.

This is undoubtedly true, but these words ring hollow since the Democratic playbook offers little in response besides tax increases and "social" spending instead of warfare. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

The American people know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but the Administration denies the intelligence. Instead, the President mechanically recites his stay the course PR line.

That's because the president is a douchenozzle. We all know this. Look, if you Democrats want to be a viable opposition party, then oppose, G-d dammit. How many prominent Democrats (at least, those that have something to lose) have been steadfast about calling for an immediate end to this pointless war?

The American people know we are off course and adrift in a sea of violence.

Must be the sharks with the frickin' laser beams.

U.S. soldiers are not fighting a war on terror in Iraq. They are targets in a civil war among Iraqis.

When Republicans parade to the rostrum to outdo each other in using their insecurity code word, think of how insecure our soldiers are.

"Does this body armor make me look fat?"

Republicans keep saying things are getting better. That is disproved by their own Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, who ordered another 13,000 U.S. soldiers into Iraq recently. There are now 140,000 U.S. soldiers surrounded by civil war.

After 2,653 American lives lost, and 19,600 wounded Americans, the country deserves Democratic leadership that knows the Republican plan to stay the course is the most insecure plan for our soldiers, this nation, and the Iraqi people.

Yeah, good luck with that. Odds are you'll find bin Laden before this "Democratic leadership" you speak of.

Republicans will spend the next 30 days trying to stay in power, nothing more.

"Our cause is noble! We Democrats won't rest until we've seized power!"

They will say their insecurity code word over and over, but they won't pass the recommendations of the bi-partisan 9/11 commission.

"Bi-partisan," great. Things are seldom worse than when the Stupid Party and the Evil Party agree on something.

Republicans won't bring up immigration legislation intended to make our borders safer.

Legislation does not make us safer. See explanation, supra.

Republicans won't address reforms to make Social Security safer.

How exactly does one make a Ponzi scheme safer, Jim?

Republicans won't bring up legislation to end taxpayer subsidies for Big Oil, or launch a national campaign to end our addiction to oil.

Instead, Republicans will tell you to be afraid unless you pay through the nose at the pump, and Big Oil drills in every pristine environment left on the planet.

Republicans will tell you to be afraid for Social Security unless they give your benefits to Wall Street, so you might have holdings like Enron.

Clever, invoking the Enron bogeyman. No doubt those guys were awful, but care to take some responsibility for the government's role in creating the Enron monster? No?

Republicans will tell you to be afraid unless they can mortgage America's 22nd century, so that today's super rich can just have more.

Delightful. The "super rich" -- another boring, predictable Democratic whipping boy. This sentence tells you all you need to know about modern Democrats and their unwillingness to be dragged into the 21st century. OK, listen: there are a lot of people who made boatloads of money yet still maintained their liberal bona fides. Look at all of fucking Hollywood. Enough bashing of the "super rich." Fomenting class warfare is so very Marxist chic, and so very fucking passe. It does not resonate with anyone; it only reinforces the perception that you people are disconnected from reality. Get over it already.

Republicans had their chance and squandered it, leaving the American people with monstrous debt.

I love this: "WE collected your taxes, WE squandered it on warfare and pork, WE can't be trusted with power...but shit, the debt? That's YOURS." You know how you know this is bullshit? Expect Republicans to use the exact same rhetoric after the Democrats control the purse strings for two years. The parties just recycle and trade the same epithets every election year but nothing changes.

Republicans had their chance and used it to divert America away from the real war on terror.

Terrorism is a tactic. You can't wage war against an abstraction or strategy like "terror." There is no real war on terror, and even if there was, it couldn't be won. Please stop trying to talk tough by appropriating Republican language. Geez, if McDermott is representative of some new Democratic vanguard, these guys are in heaps of trouble.

Republicans are calling this Security September.

Not quite as much fun as "March Madness" or "Black History Month," but maybe it'll grow on us.

Just remember to be afraid....afraid of what else Republicans will do if they remain in power after the November election.

I am. Unfortunately, the Democrats terrify me just as much. There is really only one cause for hope and it has nothing to do with politicians.

[h/t to reddit]

Another Example of How the State Ruins Everything

2006-09-10T23:11:00.000-04:00

Are Some Video Games Gambling?

Although thousands of gamers enjoy an online simulation called Entropia Universe, questions are being raised as to whether the game constitutes "illegal" gambling (especially by "minors"), and if real in-game earnings constitute income for the taxman to steal.

Is there any sphere of human activity left that the state won't tax, regulate, or otherwise throttle?

[h/t to Fark.com]

State Servant Lectures, Punishes Teens For Insufficient State Worship

2006-09-07T22:24:00.000-04:00

Oh, the judges these days:

Flag burners sentenced - Teens have to apologize, serve two days at VA hospital

It must be pointed out here that these teens are being singled out and punished for choosing American flags to burn, and not for the actual crime of taking and vandalizing property they didn't own. One wonders how these teens would have been treated for burning less political symbols such as mailboxes or trash bins.

In essence, these kids are being punished for their thoughts as much as their deeds, which is pretty fucking ironic given that the judge sought to impart some life-changing civics lesson about American freedom.

Just listen to this idiot:

“It was so disrespectful to all of the men and women who have served our country,” she said. “You should have known. I have no doubt your parents taught you better than this. It shouldn’t have taken this to make you appreciative.”

No, what's disrespectful, if not downright perverse, is teaching teens that freedom is about flags and veterans -- symbols and servants of the state. True freedom means freedom from the state, not because of it.

Asshat.

[h/t to fark.com]

Film Review: "Broken Flowers"

2006-09-05T22:56:00.000-04:00

There is a lot going on in Jim Jarmusch's "Broken Flowers": it is, to varying degrees, a mystery story, a character study, a road picture, a comedy, and a drama. The film stars Bill Murray as Don Johnston, a guy who made a fortune in computers and who now seems content to idle away in front of his widescreen TV.

On the same day that Johnston's live-in girlfriend leaves him, a mysterious letter arrives in a pink envelope, unsigned, without a return address or legible postmark. The letter is purportedly from an old flame, who informs him that twenty years back she had had his son and the boy might be looking for his father. Though Don seems surprised by the news, he resolves to do nothing about it. After much sleuthing, planning, and cajoling from his neighbor, Winston, Don is persuaded to try tracking down the boy and his mother first. One wonders whether Don is moved by a desire to find his long-lost son or if he simply has nothing better to do.

And so, after narrowing the list of maternal possibilities down to five women (which is whittled to four after Winston learns one is dead), Don embarks on his journey as "a stalker in a Taurus," as he puts it. The odyssey is like an inside-out version of "Flirting With Disaster," minus the madcap hijinks. Though the scenes with Don's former lovers are sprinkled with hints and clues about the letter writer's identity, the film leaves open several possibilities that I won't ruin here.

It is important to note that no one but Bill Murray could have pulled off the role of Don; as Roger Ebert has noted, Murray is perhaps the only actor who can convey emotional depths with little more than a look in his eye or an almost imperceptible change of expression. Indeed, Jarmusch wrote the part of Johnston with Murray in mind.

Stylistically and thematically, the film is vintage Jarmusch. He doesn't beat the viewer about the face with his style but moves the plot forward with a minimalist approach; quiet fades between scenes and minimal dialogue work just fine here. The characters interact so well with nonverbal cues and awkward silences that the absence of clever dialogue never seems stark or contrived.

Visually, Jarmusch's choices are wise. The film is set in early autumn, which parallels Don's own inevitable slide toward twilight (but not without hope of rebirth thanks to a son). Feminine symbols such as flowers and the color pink are featured prominently and recur throughout the film. Many shots are used to illustrate the banalities of travel; airplanes taking off, Don in the car on a dull stretch of road, Don consulting his map, Don settling in for another night in a seedy and depressing motel, etc. I loved these scenes, not because they were particularly interesting, but because they helped maintain a rhythm and they suggested that the journey was as important as the destination.

Murray and Jarmusch have created an intriguing, enigmatic character in Don Johnston. By most objective measures, he is a success: he cashed out of a thriving business and is popular with women and children, and yet, he seems oddly unfulfilled and melancholy. By the end we are left wondering whether the journey was worthwhile; is Don better or worse off after his encounters? Ah, but perhaps that's looking at things the wrong way: that Don seemed to give a damn is reason enough to be hopeful for him.

Thick As A "Brick"

2006-08-31T00:44:00.000-04:00

I want you to check out this list of the "50 Greatest Conservative Rock Songs" from John J. Miller, not for its quality, but as an illustration of how a person's perception gets warped from viewing the world through the purely political prism. My beef here is with the inclusion of #23: Ben Folds’s “Brick.” Miller’s description reads:

Written from the perspective of a man who takes his young girlfriend to an abortion clinic, this song describes the emotional scars of “reproductive freedom” [the snarky quotation marks are duly noted, jerk -- JB]: “Now she’s feeling more alone / Than she ever has before. . . . As weeks went by / It showed that she was not fine.”

Yes, the song exudes a plaintive, regretful vibe. Certainly it is no “I’m Every Woman”-style celebration of abortion. But only a fool would argue that the narrator's (or songwriter's) expression of anguish equals a political statement against abortion. It’s an open question as to whether the couple would be better off being forced instead to have the child, isn’t it? And wouldn't it be wise to make the distinction between struggling with a decision in its aftermath and wishing away the legal right to make it?

Calling “Brick” a conservative anthem against abortion is like suggesting that Jimi Hendrix’s “Hey Joe” is some liberal plea for gun control. Please, just cut that shit out. Each song tells a tale of personal woe and despair, and perhaps they are cautionary in nature, but the subtexts are scarcely political. Which you'd realize if you actually listened to them with appreciation instead of torturously seeking affirmation of your dreary philosophy.

And I doubt most composers would appreciate your co-opting their work and reducing their artistry to cheap slogans and simplistic interpretations.

So my advice to you, John J. Miller, is: listen to the music. And quit politicizing…EVERYTHING.

Bustin' Out of L7

2006-08-28T20:59:00.000-04:00

My friend and former cow-orker Wayne recently jumpstarted his new blog. Check it out:

Bustin' Out of L7

Look for a potpourri of pop culture insights and fearless social commentary served up with Wayne's trademark wit and urbanity. Some cool posts are up already so take a look.

Welcome to the blogosphere, Wayne...

Yeah, But Have These 'Activists' Ever Actually Watched 'Dark Meat Sandwich?'

2006-08-27T23:11:00.000-04:00

Moralizing nutjobs seek the state's help to keep you from looking at porn in hotel rooms. And of course, they're getting at least a little love from the feds:

Activists Try to Curtail Hotels' In-Room Porn

NEW YORK -- Pornographic movies now seem nearly as pervasive in America's hotel rooms as tiny shampoo bottles, and the lodging industry shows little concern as conservative activists rev up a protest campaign aimed at triggering a federal crackdown.

"A federal crackdown"? On personal choice? Sounds like the perfect job for the state.

A coalition of 13 conservative groups -- including the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America -- took out full-page ads in some editions of USA Today earlier this month urging the Justice Department and FBI to investigate whether some of the pay-per-view movies widely available in hotels violate federal and state obscenity laws.

Can't wait to see how the review process works.

The coalition also is trying to draw attention to CleanHotels.com, a directory of hotels and motels nationwide that pledge to exclude adult offerings from their in-room entertainment service.

Though porn is now cheaply and readily accessible on the Internet, and through many other outlets, the activists chose to target the hotel industry in part because of the well-known brands of corporations that cater to family vacationers as well as business travelers.

"These are places that you take your family -- these are respectable institutions,'' said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. "Anything that brings porn into the mainstream is a concern. It just desensitizes people.''

Too...many...jokes. Must contain...sophomoric...URGES...

Precise statistics on in-room adult entertainment are hard to come by.

[giggling like Beavis]

By some estimates, adult movies are available in roughly 40 percent of the nation's hotels, representing more than 1.5 million rooms. Industry analysts suggest that these adult offerings generate 60 to 80 percent of total in-room entertainment revenue -- several hundred million dollars a year.

The recent newspaper ad mentioned no hotel companies by name because of legal concerns, but it did target the two major suppliers of in-room adult movies _ South Dakota-based LodgeNet and Denver-based OnCommand, a subsidiary of Liberty Media Corp. The ad accused both companies of distributing hardcore pornography to their hotel clients, and it provided a link to a list of X-rated movie titles.

Seriously, if you do nothing else today, please, PLEASE check out the aforementioned list. The irony of religious and moral zealots listing porn titles is funny, but the irony was overwhelmed by the sheer hilarity of the titles themselves: "Dark Meat Sandwich"; "TEN XTREME -- Interracial Facials"; "Quick n' Nasty -- Petite Poundings". Oh, and lest you think I'm making this up: feast your eyes on this list, Caligula.

[By the way, did that list remind anyone else of Randal's infamous "porn tape ordering" scene from the movie "Clerks"? (language NSFW)]

Spokesmen for OnCommand and Liberty Media declined to comment on the ad, and LodgeNet's spokeswoman did not return calls seeking comment. However, top spokespeople for two of the biggest hotel chains, Hilton and Marriott, defended the policies that make adult movies widely available at their affiliated hotels.

Both Kathy Shepard of Hilton and Roger Conner of Marriott said the bulk of their hotels are operated by franchise-holders who make their own decisions about in-room programming. They made clear, however, that their companies consider adult movies to be an acceptable option because they can be ignored or blocked out by guests not wishing to view them.

"Really ultraconservative groups try to target the hotels in their zest to eliminate porn,'' Shepard said. "In their zest to have their personal morals prevail, they're eliminating choice for others.''

Conner said none of the programing offered by Marriott is illegal, and he depicted adult movies as a standard part of today's hotel business.

"In-room movies are a revenue stream,'' he said. "This is a business matter.''

The leader of the campaign against in-room porn is Phil Burress, a self-described former porn addict who heads the Cincinnati-based Citizens for Community Values.

Hey, Phil -- "communities" don't have values, individuals do. And some of those individuals would appreciate your not making value choices for them. Thanks.

[By the way, how does one become a "former porn addict?" Um, don't answer that.]

Burress and his allies have had some success regionally, pressuring about 15 Ohio and Kentucky hotels to stop offering adult movies. But he says a nationwide pressure campaign would be difficult because nearly all the big hotel chains have similar policies -- porn is available at some but not all of their affiliates.

Though unable to cite specific cases, Burress contended that the availability of in-room porn is making hotels more dangerous.

Only if you forget to hang the "Do Not Disturb" sign on the door (ba-dum-bum!)

"As more and more of these (hardcore) titles become available, we're going to have sexual abuse cases coming out of the hotels,'' he said. "Hotels are just as dangerous as environments around strip joints and porn stores.''

Burress said he was "cautiously optimistic'' that Justice Department officials -- whom he and other anti-porn leaders confer with periodically -- would seriously consider investigating hotel-based pornography.

Justice Department spokesman Bryan Sierra said federal authorities are committed to toughening enforcement of obscenity laws, but he declined to comment on specific targets for investigations.

Because that's just what we need...government-approved pornography.

LodgeNet and OnCommand together provide in-room entertainment to more than 1.8 million hotel room in North America -- with customers that include Sheraton, Hilton, Holiday Inn, Ritz-Carlton, Hyatt, Marriott and Ramada.

The standard in-room packages offered by LodgeNet and OnCommand include adult movies, but they have tried to accommodate hotels preferring a no-porn alternative, according to Shannon Sedgwick Davis, executive director of an association of hotels which don't offer adult movies to guests.

One problem, she said, is that the big hotel chains often have negotiated bulk contracts with the video suppliers that include the adult movies and can be expensive to cancel.

Look, people. Boycotts, press releases, ad campaigns, do whatever the fuck you have to do as long as you respect personal choice. I don't care. But if you want to enlist the aid of the federal government to enforce your view of morality, then you need a refresher course on the meaning of personal freedom.

And if that article wasn't chilling enough, check out the group's press release:

Adult hardcore pornography can tragically lead to sex crimes against women and children. Yet prosecutable sex videos are available within a few clicks in millions of U.S. hotel rooms. We are calling on the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation to immediately investigate the companies that distribute it to determine whether "adult" videos being sold in hotels by OnCommand and LodgeNet violate long-established Federal and State laws regarding distribution of obscene material.

OnCommand, a wholly owned subsidiary of Liberty Media Corp., and LodgeNet distribute the “worst of the worst” in graphic, hardcore pornographic videos. CEOs John Malone of Liberty Media and Scott Petersen of LodgeNet are chief among the nation’s “white collar pornographers.”

A list of the “adult” selections offered by OnCommand and LodgeNet's are available by clicking on the TV at the right. BE FOREWARNED, THE TITLES ARE GRAPHIC.

And hilarious!

“The lists speak for themselves,” CCV President Phil Burress says. “This is not mere nudity. We’re talking about every conceivable form of degrading, distorted sex."

Did this guy just remind anyone else of this scene from "The 40 Year Old Virgin"?

Mooj: Life is about people. It's about connections.
Andy Stitzer: It's all about connections.
Mooj: It's not about cocks, and ass, and tits.
Andy Stitzer: Yeah.
Mooj: And butthole pleasures.
Andy Stitzer: It's not about butthole pleasures at all.
Mooj: It's not about these rusty trombones, and these Dirty Sanchez--
Andy Stitzer: Please stop.
Mooj: And these Cincinnati bowties, and these pussy juice cocktail, and these shit stained balls--
Andy Stitzer: Mooj, just please stop.

"We’re talking about the types of material, which are addictive in nature, which men are lured into viewing in the privacy of their hotel rooms, and which have been responsible for sexual crimes and for the breakdown of countless marriages, families and careers. And we’re talking about a company and its leader who care more about the dollar than about those men, women, children and families."

PORNOGRAPHY DOESN’T STAY PRIVATE

It is a known fact that registered sex offenders use adult hardcore pornography as a high-octane fuel to direct dangerous sexual behavior toward others, including children. The often-addictive nature of pornography – which many view as a private act – continues to have drastic public consequences.

It is also a known fact that literally millions of normal, healthy people use adult hardcore pornography in ways that have nothing to do with dangerous sexual behavior, especially toward children. What's your point?

For more than 23 years Roger Young investigated obscenity cases as an FBI agent and trained prosecutors in the enforcement of federal obscenity laws. He states that, "in the majority of cases where sexual predators were arrested, pornography was associated with the commission of the crime and/or found to be in the possession of the offender."

Great. Hey, Einstein, let's try a thought experiment by substituting a few words: "in the majority of cases where bank robbers were arrested, getaway vehicles were associated with the commission of the crime and/or found to be in the possession of the offender." See what I'm getting at, or do I have to spell it out for you geniuses?

Reams of additional evidence link the use of adult hardcore pornography to the commission of sex crimes by sexual predators. So why is such a toxic ‘drug’ so readily available in virtually any hotel room in this country? Three words: Money. Money. Money.

You know what else is readily available in hotel rooms? Bibles. You know what they have in common with porn? You have the choice to ignore or peruse each as you see fit.

More importantly, this is really an issue about property rights. You want a porn-free hotel? Buy or build one to compete with the others. Otherwise, STFU. Neither the feds nor some group of yentas have any right to demand a "crackdown" on the choices of free people.

The Campaign for Corporate Responsibility is appealing to law enforcement to investigate these known pornographers.

Hey, before you do that, maybe you should check out this study -- which basically refutes all that bullshit you just said.

[h/t, as usual, to fark.com]

A New Pledge

2006-08-25T13:24:00.000-04:00

Lately I've been bursting with ideas and half-baked inspiration for blog posts but, alas, I have little more than hastily scrawled notes and befuddling hieroglyphics as evidence. I just feel as though I need to be writing and kvetching every day even though my self-discipline has never been monkish.

But starting tomorrow, Dear Reader, I'm striving to update this thing at least once a day, every day. Bold, you say? Vainglorious foolishness? Boundless hilarity? Perhaps. And if this pledge seems like a promise of quantity over quality, well, that's probably accurate. Let's just see how this foray into chutzpah turns out.

See you tomorrow.

Hey, Look! More Market Intervention Shenanigans!

2006-08-15T23:40:00.000-04:00

Gas station owner says state won't let him lower prices

MONROE, Wis. -- An ethanol-pump owner says he wants to lower his prices but the state won't let him.

Badger Ethanol in Monroe charges around $2.22 for a gallon of E-85, an alcohol-fuel mixture that is 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline, by volume.

Badger's owners wanted to cut the price to $2 but said they had to artificially hike prices after some competitors complained Badger wasn't meeting the state's minimum markup laws.

The markup law is "antiquated" and the governor and Legislature should eliminate it, said Gary Kramer, head of Badger State Ethanol.

Wisconsin Consumer Protection investigators launched a probe into Badger's fuel prices and found E-85 selling for just over $2 a gallon.

What's interesting is that "Wisconsin Consumer Protection" investigators launched the probe based on complaints not from consumers but from Badger's competitors. Only the state could "protect" consumers by forcing them to pay more for a product than what the market would otherwise charge.

Based on a complicated formula, the investigators said the price should have been $1 more. On Tuesday, Gov. Jim Doyle ordered state investigators to do nothing to stop the pricing.

"A complicated formula"? Sweet Lincoln's mullet, who do these guys think they are? We already have a law that governs prices fairly: it's called supply and demand. And it works just fine without the meddling of politicians.

The move came hours after Doyle's Republican opponents ripped the investigation into Badger Ethanol.

Let's review the lessons of this little episode:

The law helps:
*The state, whose power and influence is enhanced by the regulations
*Badger's wasteful and inefficient competitors, who are protected from competition by the state

The law harms:
*Badger, which is barred from profiting on its innovations and competitive advantage
*Consumers, who are legally compelled to pay higher prices for fuel

Keep in mind that this is all done under the auspices of protecting consumers. Consider also that, in a ruefully ironic twist, if Badger were to charge more for its fuel than the state deemed acceptable, it would face charges of gouging.

Don't you feel better knowing that our omniscient and compassionate overlords know precisely how much fuel should cost?

[h/t to fark.com]

Ignorance, Politics Prevail Over Economic Logic in Chicago

2006-07-27T21:05:00.000-04:00

Council defies Daley, OKs 'living wage'

Defying Mayor Daley and challenging Wal-Mart and Target to follow through on their threats, a bitterly divided City Council voted Wednesday to require Chicago's big-box retailers to pay employees a "living wage" of at least $10 an hour and $3 in benefits by 2010.

Oh, fuck. Not again. Look, we've been over this already.

No matter how damning or conclusive the evidence against these economic fallacies, moronic decrees such as this one continue to zoom through ignorant legislatures and city councils like shit through a goose. Um, guys? The laws of economics can be neither repealed nor replaced by political will. Please, just stop.

As usual, Lew Rockwell sounds the proper note on this issue:

The debate over minimum wage laws goes to the very core of how we view the relationship between economics and politics. Politicians who enact these laws imagine themselves as central planners magically bringing compassion and high living standards into being with the stroke of a pen. People who support the laws have a flawed view of the market process that sees exploitation behind all exchange relationships. Unions that back them are selfishly using the political process to enrich themselves at others' expense.

Only economic libertarians understand the actual reality: the minimum wage is a violent imposition on the freedom of association that harms all of society in the long run.

Please read the whole thing. I promise it's worth the time.

Another Turd From Gene Wojciechowski

2006-07-24T23:21:00.000-04:00

Like with most things, ESPN the Plucky Upstart was way more appealing than ESPN, Corporate Juggernaut. People forget this now but the network used to be something of a maverick; for those of us old enough to have been weaned on four minutes of sports coverage at the end of the 11 PM local news, "SportsCenter" was a revelation: irreverent, spontaneous, fun. Now, the network consists of little more than irritating "talent", lame sentimentality, and "original entertainment."

For the most part, ESPN.com is an outpost for the network's lame corporate mentality: better to traffic in safe, bland, and predictable opinions than to shake up the status quo. Outside of the Sports Guy, few of ESPN.com's columnists challenge conventional wisdom or rock the boat in any way.

Besides the execrable (wretched? insufferable? I struggled to settle on just the right adjective) Skip Bayless, perhaps no ESPN.com writer better personifies this depressing trend than Gene Wojciechowski. If there's a prevailing wisdom on an issue, you can bet ol' Gene has his hands wrapped tightly around the bandwagon reins. Anyway, his latest ode to ennui can be found here. I'm not feeling charitable:

Next year's ESPYS should include a new category: Best Performance By An Outraged Lawyer On Courthouse Steps. I nominate Jeff Borris, a lawyer for Barry Bonds who simply can't understand why federal prosecutors keep picking on his poor little client.

While we're creating new ESPY categories (and nice ESPYs plug, you sly devil), how about Most Nauseating and Unwarranted Moralizing by a Sportswriter. Lots of nominees as usual but I'm pulling for ya, Gene.

"We should be paying tax dollars trying to locate bin Laden," said Borris to the minicams last week. "Isn't he Public Enemy No. 1?" (Memo to Bonds: I don't know what you're paying this guy, but if it's more than a dab of Atomic Balm, a wad of chaw and a handful of sunflower seeds, it's too much).

I could make the same observation about what ESPN is paying you, Gene, but that would be...cheap. And it would seem Borris has a point, since you made no effort to refute the man.

Borris, Bonds and the rest of his legal team are nuts if they think the feds are going away. The Feds are Belushi in "Animal House": "Over? Did you say, 'over?' Nothing is over until WE decide it is!"

Oh my G-d, the feds are so not Belushi in "Animal House." When was the last time you heard a member of the federal government (besides Clinton) say, "My advice to you...is to start drinking heavily"?

Borris can yammer on until his habeas needs a new corpus.

Um...what?

Michael Rains, another Bonds attorney with a penchant for courthouse-step sound bites, can accuse the government all he wants of conducting an investigation that has morphed, he says, into "a persecution." The feds don't care. They're used to hearing indignant defense lawyers talk tough, although the thing about finding bin Laden was probably good for a few laughs.

They found it fucking hilarious, no doubt.

Until Greg Anderson, Bonds' boyhood friend and former personal trainer, agrees to testify before a grand jury, the feds will keep reaching into their legal toolbox for more screws. Martha Stewart, who served time for, among other things, lying to federal investigators, can explain how that works.

I'm not sure which is worse here, Gene: your shaky interpretation of the Martha Stewart case or your contemptible cheerleading for the feds. Dick.

Meanwhile, defense attorneys defend, prosecutors forge ahead, legal experts opine. That's fine. But if you take sandpaper to all the verbal posturing and lawyerese in this case, you're left with a simple question: Why won't Anderson talk?

And unless you're Greg Anderson, Barry Bonds, or one of their attorneys, you're left with a simple answer: we have no fucking idea. We're not privy to the facts. You can speculate that he's covering up for Bonds. I'll speculate that he's been friends with Bonds for most of his life and that his loyalty eclipses whatever threats the feds are making. Maybe he objects to the bullying and demands for answers to questions that the feds have no right asking.

Think about it. Bonds and his attorneys say the San Francisco Giants outfielder has done nothing wrong. Didn't lie to the grand jury. Didn't lie on his taxes. Didn't take performance-enhancing drugs -- at least, not "knowingly."

OK, let's pretend they're telling the truth. Let's pretend Bonds is the victim of a government and media conspiracy, that his head size and home run numbers grew exponentially because he drank gallons of milk and ate lots of Wheaties. Let's pretend he reported all of that memorabilia show cash. Gee, Barry is a swell guy.

Let's pretend you can think critically, Gene. As a sportswriter with a national audience, you could seize the opportunity to open a dialogue about the proper role of government. Ask some probing questions. Be a skeptic of power for once in your life. Here are some sample questions: Shouldn't the concept of self-ownership prevent the state from regulating what people put in their bodies? Baseball can choose to ban PEDs as a condition of employment but why should the use of PEDs/HGH be criminal? And shouldn't Americans be angry about how much we're taxed? Is there no area of commerce, including "show cash," that is beyond the greedy hands of the taxman? You know, stuff like that.

So tell me, then, why won't Anderson talk? If Bonds has done no wrong, what is there for Anderson to protect?

Ah, resorting to the Bush Administration's favored "You have nothing to fear if you've done nothing wrong!" argument for illegal wiretapping. Well played, sir. [claps wearily]

Instead, Anderson, who was convicted in 2005 of laundering money and distributing steroids, won't say a peep. He already has done one two-week stint in prison for refusing to appear in front of a grand jury. And it appears he'll do more time -- much more time -- if he does a Sammy Sosa and forgets how to speak English when a new grand jury convenes.

"They can subpoena him every day for the rest of the year and it doesn't matter," Mark Geragos, Anderson's lawyer, told reporters. "He's not going to talk."

Defiance doesn't go over real big with the U.S. Attorney's office, especially when the feds are convinced Anderson knows who took what performance-enhancing drugs and when they took them. In short, they think the man whose personal training business was named, "Get Big Productions," can explain exactly how Bonds, and others, got so huge.

He probably can but, once again, you fail to ask the critical question here: why is steroid use among ballplayers any of the feds' fucking business? Let's say that the use of Ecstasy among sportswriters was suspected to be rampant -- and given the quality and integrity demonstrated by the profession these days, that's a crazy fucking idea, I know -- but how would you feel about your best friend being subpoenaed and imprisoned for refusing to testify about your suspected use?

There are only so many reasons Anderson keeps pressing the mute button: (A) His grand jury testimony would implicate Bonds and, damn it, he's no snitch; (B) his testimony would be leaked to the media and, damn it, he doesn't want anybody to know he's a snitch; (C) he doesn't want to burn his boyhood friend; or (D) he's holding out for a deal.

I pick D, for Deal.

I pick E, for Refusing to Dignify This Publicity Whoring By Giving These Arrogant Pricks in the Federal Government What They Want.

All deals are the product of leverage. The feds have jail. Anderson has silence. My guess is that at some point the U.S. Attorney's office will offer something in exchange for Anderson's testimony. My other guess is that Anderson will take it. Otherwise, he will spend months … a year … perhaps more than a year, in prison. And for what? To protect Bonds, whose attorney Rains began to distance his client ever so slightly from Anderson a few days ago?

Interesting, since with most state endeavors, jail is all the feds have. The state produces nothing, provides nothing, invents nothing. But it does give us wars, prohibition, taxation, and jail. Good times.

Bonds initially said he thought substances given to him by Anderson in 2003 were flaxseed oil and anti-arthritic balm. But now Rains said Bonds was "suspicious" about whether they were performance enhancers. Expect more revisionist history in the coming months.

The feds can be ruthless, and I don't mean that in a good way, necessarily.

Whew, thank goodness you qualified that with "necessarily." For a second there I was afraid you might take a principled stand.

They don't care whether Anderson does more prison time. They don't care that Bonds has 722 career home runs and is beloved in the Bay Area. This isn't about manners. This is about separating fact from fiction.

This is about reminding people who's boss.

Bonds faces a federal trifecta: perjury, the use of illegal performance-enhancing drugs and tax evasion. If convicted, that means fines, jail time or both. So catching Hank Aaron or reaching the Hall of Fame is the least of his worries. Or should be. Even for the smug Bonds, it would be galactically stupid to underestimate the ferocity of the feds.

"Galactically stupid," good one. And you thought you could sneak that reference from "A Few Good Men" by us, you cheeky monkey.

What's next? For now, we hear the blustery sounds of indignant defense lawyers on courthouse steps. What we don't hear is Anderson. That silence, more than anything, speaks loudest.

Ugh. We also read the blustery prose of indignant sportswriters who lack both intellectual curiosity and a reporter's good old-fashioned nose for bullshit. Bravo, Gene. Bra-vo.

Someone please explain this one to me...

2006-07-13T22:49:00.000-04:00

Reds swap Kearns to Nats for Clayton, pitchers

Is Reds GM Wayne Krivsky serious? Doing whippits? Here's the trade:

Reds trade:

Austin Kearns (Age 26, 14.9 VORP in '06)
Felipe Lopez (Age 26, 16.7 VORP in '06)
Ryan Wagner (Age 23, struggling in AAA this year)

Nats trade:

Gary Majewski (Age 26, 13.4 VORP)
Bill Bray (Age 23, 4.4 VORP; 45 Ks/9 BB in 31.2 AAA innings)
Royce Clayton (Age 36, 3.1 VORP)
Brendan Harris (Age 26, 32 major league ABs in 2006)
Daryl Thompson (pitching prospect: 4 GS, 6.2 innings in short season New York-Penn league)

So let's break this down:

The Nats get two everyday players entering their primes and a young reliever with potential.

The Reds get:

1. An utterly fungible middle reliever (Majewski) -- a guy whose component skills barely rise to set-up level, let alone closer in grooming
2. The rotting husk that used to be Royce Clayton
3. An infield prospect (Harris) whose career path is shaping up to be "Tony Graffanino utility" at best
4. A pitching prospect (Thompson) who might never throw a pitch above A-ball level
5. And a former college closer (Bray)

To be fair, Bray's minor league numbers are very good, and he does have a chance to contribute. But this deal is an unmitigated disaster for Cincinnati. You can make all the "Wayne Krivsky couldn't win my fantasy league" jokes you want, but seriously, how dumb do you have to be in order to get swindled by...Jim Bowden?

Somewhere, Cam Bonifay and Allard Baird look at Wayne Krivsky's Reds and nod approvingly...

Reason #1,765 Why I Love Fark.com...

2006-07-13T21:26:00.000-04:00

...is this comment thread.

The submitter's headline was: "World's five billionth baby turns nineteen, plans to celebrate with Cuervo Gold, fine Columbian."

Fark's headlines typically contain obscure references, bad puns, and goofy in-jokes, but when these intersect with Steely Dan -- my favoritest recording artists EVAR -- well, it just about made my head explode. Nice to see that so many in the Fark community are funny AND erudite.

/not officially a Farker, only a lurker
//"Szechuan dumplings after the deal has been done"
///Nobody will get this post at all

One Year of Madness!

2006-07-05T23:59:00.000-04:00

Hardly seems possible but it was one year ago today -- July 5, 2005 -- that I launched this li'l old foray into online obscurity. After (or despite?) 130 posts, 2,137 hits, a template redesign, and more than a few name changes, my love for this goofy hobby endures.

To celebrate, I'm busting out some old favorites from the past year:

Robinson & Schilling: Erase Stats After Failed Drug Tests (8/25/05)

Perdue Works to Stem Price Gouging (9/1/05)

In Defense of the A.J. Burnett Signing (sort of) (12/7/05)

In Defense of "Goldbuggery" (12/15/05)

John Schuerholz Still Doesn't Get "Moneyball" (4/16/06)

[You know it's a lazy summer when even blogs carry reruns.]

The Unfree Country Chronicles III: "The united states of total paranoia"

2006-07-02T23:18:00.000-04:00

As we spend this weekend reflecting on our nation's independence (through the time-honored traditions of cheeseburgers and pyrotechnics), consider the view from the outside:

The united states of total paranoia

I know Britain is full of incompetent water board officials and stabbed Glaswegians but even so I fell on my knees this morning and kissed the ground, because I’ve just spent three weeks trying to work in America.

It’s known as the land of the free and I’m sure it is if you get up in the morning, go to work in a petrol station, eat nothing but double-egg burgers — with cheese — and take your children to little league. But if you step outside the loop, if you try to do something a bit zany, you will find that you’re in a police state.

We begin at Los Angeles airport in front of an immigration official who, like all his colleagues, was selected for having no grace, no manners, no humour, no humanity and the sort of IQ normally found in farmyard animals. He scanned my form and noted there was no street number for the hotel at which I was staying.

“I’m going to need a number,” he said. “Ooh, I’m sorry,” I said, “I’m afraid I don’t have one.”

This didn’t seem to have any effect. “I’m going to need a number,” he said again, and then again, and then again. Each time I shrugged and stammered, terrified that I might be sent to the back of the queue or worse, into the little room with the men in Marigolds. But I simply didn’t have an answer.

“I’m going to need a number,” he said again, giving the distinct impression that he was an autobank, and that this was a conversation he was prepared to endure until one of us died. So with a great deal of bravery I decided to give him one. And the number I chose was 2,649,347.

This, it turned out, was fine. He’d been told by his superiors to get a number. I’d given him a number. His job was done and so, just an hour or so later, I was on the streets of Los Angeles doing a piece to camera.

(h/t to Fark)

When Liberals Attack!

2006-06-12T23:36:00.000-04:00

At some point Sunday I slipped into the Twilight Zone. I learned why it's often said that politics and religion should never be discussed in polite company. To wit...

While at my friends Adam’s and Christie's yesterday (for their daughter’s 2nd birthday celebration, no less), I was introduced to their neighbor, “Glenn.” Glenn, a hardcore liberal Democrat, purportedly enjoyed a good political discussion so Adam thought it might be interesting to get us together and let hilarity ensue. You know, toss a couple of cats in a bag and let the fur fly, that sort of thing.

Now, for the most part, I’ve retired from political discussions at parties. For one thing, it’s not really appropriate. For another, I grew weary of being that guy at parties who won’t shut the hell up about Really Important Issues. That’s what this blog is for. So while I will politely discuss any issue at all, especially when prodded by friends who understand my perspectives, I attend parties to hang out and enjoy the company instead of engaging in wild-eyed, spittle-flecked fits of apoplexy. Anyway...

Our discussion started out amiably enough. I joked how Sunday should be a day of rest from the vitriol and Glenn agreed. The topic of Real Time With Bill Maher came up, and I proffered my complaints about the program, the greatest being that I wanted more perspectives represented. Instead of elevating the discourse about issues and ideas, the show often unravels into partisan bickering that’s only slightly funnier than the same crap that’s dished out on Fox News or CNN. My take was that both sides (left and right) were wrong and I wanted to hear somebody, anybody, challenge them. At this Glenn grimaced, gritted his teeth, and asked about my beliefs. Naturally, I described my aversion to the state and its coercion, depredations, and initiations of violence, and how I instead favored the voluntarist, market-based solutions of anarcho-capitalism.

Well, this guy nearly shit his pants.

What I hoped would be a polite and respectful exchange of ideas quickly escalated into a full-scale browbeating. Generously, let’s characterize his reactions to my beliefs as “paroxysms of incredulity.” Bulging eyes, furrowed brow, little vein at the temples twitching. Glenn pretty much wigged his shit: his behavior was boorish, disrespectful, and condescending. And he kept cutting me off! More than once I had to politely say, “Please let me finish.”

It quickly became apparent that a fruitful conversation would prove impossible, partly due to his attitude, but mostly because we had no basis for discussion. There is little sense in arguing normative or philosophical differences. I've arrived at my beliefs through a careful process of introspection and exploration. I even explained to the guy that I’d been where he was: throughout my ideological odyssey I'd flirted with left liberalism, right-wing conservatism, and big-L Libertarianism. Finally I realized that Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism rang most consistently true with my morals and principles. If you think taxation is perfectly legitimate while I feel it's institutionalized theft, well, what's the point in continuing the conversation? We can't even agree on the moral basics here and frankly I'd rather not waste my time. I'm no evangelist. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind.

[Besides, Glenn's beliefs are the ones that have been deemed mainstream and "acceptable" while mine have been marginalized as "crackpot" or "extremist" (even though Glenn's ideas put into practice harm me a hell of a lot more than mine would do to him). Why bother getting worked up over a fringe ideology?]

Anyway, at one point he seemed to calm down and our conversation became temporarily civil. But the cease-fire was fleeting and, despite my efforts to defuse the situation, it wasn't long before Glenn was red-lining again. He challenged me to “name one anarchic society that’s worked,” while I countered by defying him to name one state that would gladly put itself out of business; it’s not like the state likes competition! At this he abruptly stood up, shook my hand with a “nice talking to you,” and stormed out.

Honestly, I don’t get this behavior, AT ALL. Liberals and anarcho-capitalists aren’t natural enemies in the wild. We both hold especially sneering contempt for the neoconservatives whose rumps so prominently occupy the seats of power, so his reluctance to seek common ground was somewhat baffling. And to act like a petulant child instead of engaging me in an honest, open exchange of ideas…well, what’s the point? Never in my life have I felt threatened by someone else’s convictions. Rather, it’s important to be challenged in order to examine your beliefs critically so that you are able to defend (or reassess) them. I’m honestly curious about what other people believe – why they believe the things they do. Isn't learning something the big reason for having a dialogue?

[Don't get me wrong: I do not extrapolate from this experience that most liberals are like this. Most of my friends lean to the left and they are all very bright, fun, and rational people. But that guy's behavior? Rife with douchebaggery.]

So that was the capper to an otherwise phenomenal weekend. If you ever want to debate me about political issues, please confine it to this forum, because after yesterday I am D-U-N done with that bullshit...

Wild Pitches: 5/24/06

2006-05-24T21:15:00.000-04:00

Random baseball stuff I'm pondering...

Jeremy Brown to scouts and skeptics: suck it. The "fat catcher" from Oakland's Moneyball draft of 2002, who polarized scouts and statheads and thus became the symbol of their discontent, is tearing up AAA to the tune of .314/.384/.570 in 24 games. I can't wait for this guy to get called up...
Jeff Francoeur: swing hard in case you hit it. Much has been made of Francoeur's recent surge but let's not get carried away. With 2 walks on the season, he now boasts a lusty .273 OBP. Do you have any idea how hard it is to bat as often as Francoeur (193 ABs) and draw only 2 walks? Mark Mulder, a starting pitcher who used to toil in the American League, has already walked three times in 21 ABs this season. Hey Jeff, here's an idea: take a fucking pitch once in awhile.
Josh Willingham: Ken Phelps All-Star, McKeon's Folly. Finally given the opportunity to prove his worth, rookie Josh Willingham is having a terrific season, posting numbers of .269/.364/.487 in 43 games so far. Yet another example of the predictive power of minor league statistics and component skills analysis.
Question of the Day: Is Curt Schilling a Hall of Famer? He's on the cusp of 200 wins, owns two World Championships, and has been a dominant (if not quite elite level) pitcher throughout his career. On the downside, he's never won a Cy Young award or an ERA title, and his lifetime totals are (for now) modest compared to those already enshrined. Still, on the strengths of his peak value, positive showing on most HOF evaluation methods, and the mythology of the bloody sock, I think he gets in.

Happy Birthday, Sweetheart!

2006-05-09T12:57:00.000-04:00

Today -- May 9 -- is my lovely wife's birthday! So if you get a chance, please feel free to send thoughts, well wishes, or virtual toasts to: tracy5973 *at* yahoo *dot* com.

Honey, if you're reading: I'm thinking of you and hope you're having a wonderful day. I adore you and wish you a very happy birthday!

Donald Fagen's "Morph the Cat"

2006-05-01T23:16:00.000-04:00

For the past month or so I've been listening nonstop to Donald Fagen's new CD, "Morph the Cat." In short, it's amazing.

Written in the wake of 9/11, Fagen's third solo effort completes a trilogy of sorts. And in Fagen's typically sardonic style, the album's mellifluous vibe and comforting melodies mask some seriously dark undercurrents.

Though the album lacks some of the initial hooks of Steely Dan's 2003 "Everything Must Go," or even Fagen's previous solo projects (1982's "The Nightfly" and 1993's "Kamakiriad") it is undeniably Fagen: vaguely humorous allusions and inscrutable lyrics set ironically against a backbeat of jazz, lush harmonies, tight grooves, and unparalleled craftmanship. The themes and arrangements unfold and develop in natural, deliberate rhythms. Donald describes it beautifully:

Musically, Morph The Cat blends jazz, soul and other musical influences - not unlike Brother Ray [Charles] once did - with extended grooves and ever changing textures and a sort of musical ambition rarely heard anymore - think Aja set in current day Manhattan. “I like it when songs develop in some way and four minutes isn’t usually enough time for something to develop musically usually,” says Fagen. “I’m still kind of plugged into the Duke Ellington model - something akin to classical music - where you start with something, you develop it a little bit and stick with it. And when you get a groove going, time flies.”

Personal highlights for me include the title track, "Morph the Cat," along with "H Gang," "Security Joan," and "Mary Shut the Garden Door." Donald displays an uncharacteristically political side in "Mary" as described by the liner notes: "Paranoia blooms when a thuggish cult gains control of the government" (Fagen confesses this song was written right after the Republican convention came to Manhattan). The song features a haunting melodica solo by Fagen and a vivid tableau of jackbooted terror set in the opening verses:

They came in under the radar
When our backs were turned around
In a fleet of Lincoln Town Cars
They rolled into our town
Confounded all six senses
Like an opiate in the brain
Mary shut the garden door
Looks a lot like rain

Mary shut the garden door
Mary shut the garden door

We pounded Rachel's radio
For reports about the bridge
There was nothing on but static
Nothing in the fridge
We lay there listening to the wind
Whistling through the pines
When we heard the engines idling
Saw the headlights through the blinds

This is a beautiful and intensely personal album. Do yourself a favor and check it out.

Joe Morgan Will Never Get 'Moneyball'

2006-04-26T23:36:00.000-04:00

Fantastic work cutting down the latest Joe Morgan chat by Ken Tremendous of the supremely hilarious FIRE JOE MORGAN blog. Over the years I've found Joe's grating arrogance to be more a source of amusement than a firing offense, but he made several head-shakingly stupid comments in his latest chat. With apologies to KT, I'd like to pile on where I think he ladled out insufficient abuse:

Joe Morgan: The guy that wrote Moneyball can't teach me about the game. That is what I meant. If you haven't been on the field, why should I read your book? How can that person teach me about the game? I learn plenty about the game everyday. Every Sunday night I learn something. The game changes almost every day. But I'm still not going to read Moneyball or books written by people who haven't been on the field or really experienced what goes on in the game of baseball.

And later on...

I want to clarify the misunderstand [sic] about what I learn. Every Sunday I learn something new. But I'm going to stand by the fact that somebody who didn't play the game can't teach me about the game. I learned from the best, the legends who played the game. I played alongside so many great players. I'm just not going to read a book in hopes of learning how to play baseball. But this is an everchanging game and I do learn something almost every day. I'm just a former baseball player who is now an analyst. My thoughts are about the game and not medical technologies and such. Just because somebody writes a book doesn't mean they know the game.

These statements are so stupendously, forehead-slappingly moronic, it's hard to believe this guy is ever taken seriously. Let's parse, shall we?

But I'm going to stand by the fact that somebody who didn't play the game can't teach me about the game.

Bollocks. This whole premise is sheer bollocks. That's like Bill Clinton saying that political scientists who study polls, demographics, and voter trends can teach him nothing about predicting election results because they never ran for office. Geez, Joe, was it the sailors or the scientists who first realized that the earth was round?

I'm just not going to read a book in hopes of learning how to play baseball.

WTF? See, that's part of the problem, Joe. Moneyball is not an instructional pamphlet. If you want to learn how to play baseball, then I suggest you consult the Tom Emanski videos endorsed by Fred McGriff and his gigantic cap. If you want to learn about how Billy Beane outfoxes richer clubs through the creative application of basic economic concepts...never mind.

Just because somebody writes a book doesn't mean they know the game.

And, sadly, just because somebody is an Emmy-winning baseball analyst and Hall of Fame player doesn't mean they know the game, either.

John Schuerholz Still Doesn't Get "Moneyball"

2006-04-16T22:47:00.000-04:00

This point-counterpoint comes courtesy of Braves GM John Schuerholz's new book, Built to Win. Perhaps I'll post a full review once I've finished reading it but, for now, it's Chapter 2 ("Gentlemen, Start Your Moneyball Arguments") that has me all fired up. With apologies to FIRE JOE MORGAN:

Moneyball contends that the low-budget A's, forced to play little checkbook baseball, were able to win their division in 2003 and contend during recent seasons by primarily cobbling together an economy roster of inexpensive kids and scrap heap vets on the basis of some trendy statistical analysis.

Gentlemen, start your strawman arguments! This "trendy statistical analysis" you speak of. Please, tell me more about your understanding of it.

This "revolutionary" formula virtually discards not only the trained eye of seasoned scouts, bunting and base stealing, but brands as meaningless the value of an effective closer.

No, no, NO. Nobody's discarding anything; the point of Moneyball was to reassess the traditional assumptions that have driven player evaluation and acquisition. So in rebuttal:

1) Seasoned scouts are fine but the Moneyball approach concedes that they are prone to subjective judgments and human biases. By combining a scout's observations with objective statistical measurements, you get a clearer picture of a player's true potential. Statistics are a tool best used in tandem with scouting and these tools should complement one another. This doesn't have to be a zero sum game.

2) Bunting and base stealing are fine in certain situations. You just have to understand the risks and rewards since you have a finite supply of outs to use each game -- 27 is all you get. Wasting them with sacrifices and poor baserunning is probably not the optimal way for your offense to operate.

3) Closers are "meaningless?" Says who? Not the A's, as evidenced by their employment of Jason Isringhausen, Keith Foulke, Octavio Dotel, and Huston Street. Next.

The basic Moneyball theory is, substantially, on-base percentage for position players and groundball outs for pitchers -- a pure statistical way to put a team together.

Well, sure, if you actually want to win. Bill James studied these issues years ago, and his regression analysis determined that on-base percentage was the highest correlate for scoring runs. Which should be the focal point of the offense. And groundballs are a laudable goal since they're tough to hit over the fence and even better for inducing double plays. But true Moneyballers will tell you to stock up on power pitchers since strikeouts remove nearly all the vagaries of balls in play. But whatever.

In fairness, Moneyball made for a good read, even though I feel the basic premise is terribly flawed.

In fairness to Schuerholz, at least he's read the book, unlike some of its less enlightened critics. But to reiterate: no, no, NO. Moneyball was not just about stats. The book explains a system for identifying and exploiting inefficiencies in the player marketplace. The premise is that it's possible to use statistics to identify undervalued or underappreciated commodities languishing in the minor leagues or on major league benches -- replacement players that are freely available and far cheaper than "established" major leaguers. The idea is to outflank your deep pocketed rivals by getting 75%+ of the production of a high-priced free agent at 25% (or less) of the cost. If anything, Moneyball is about the efficient employment of resources even more than statistical analysis.

And the application of economics, where Moneyball is concerned, is about more than money. To fully appreciate the lessons of Moneyball, the savvy reader needs to have a basic understanding of the principles of economics. For example, baseball GMs need to understand and appreciate concepts such as supply and demand, opportunity cost, and the idea of replacement level talent in order to succeed in a dynamic marketplace. Understanding and applying these concepts can mean the difference between being on the right or wrong side of a Brian Giles for Ricardo Rincon or Bobby Abreu for Kevin Stocker trade.

In a sense, Schuerholz is an unwitting proponent of Moneyball principles. The Braves have never overpaid for a closer, either in a trade or via free agency, throughout Schuerholz's tenure. And this is much to John's credit. Schuerholz intuitively understands that it's insane to pay relief pitchers tons of money because of some magical "closer" designation, where value is bound up in managerial usage patterns rather than some intrinsic skill set on the part of the pitcher. While the Mets overpay for Billy Wagner, Schuerholz acquires decent relievers at bargain basement prices, and any one of them could mature into the closer role. It makes little sense to overpay for a role when cheaper talent is there for the grooming. And when a guy gets too expensive, the Braves let him go and start the process anew. The formula has worked for 15 years, with such luminaries as Alejandro Pena, Mike Stanton, Greg McMichael, Mark Wohlers, Kerry Ligtenberg, John Rocker, and Kyle Farnsworth ably handling the job. Though Schuerholz might not acknowledge it, this is as much a Moneyball concept as anything, and it's surprising that more teams haven't tried to emulate this pattern.

It's infuriating that Schuerholz is so dismissive of a philosophy that, properly understood and deployed, might have made the Braves even better. Schuerholz is quick to crow about his successes, citing the good value he got from Julio Franco and Jaret Wright despite their questionable pedigrees. OK, fine. But he doesn't satisfactorily address the misses. Yes, he touches on the failed chance they took on Raul Mondesi, but the Schuerholz era is littered with bad decisions and contracts, failures that any Moneyballer could have anticipated, including: Rico Brogna, Albie Lopez, Vinny Castilla, Walt Weiss, Mike Hampton, Danny Kolb, B.J. Surhoff, Jose Hernandez, Rey Sanchez, etc.

It all comes back to the concept of opportunity cost. Doling out money and roster spots to mediocrities like those guys takes away resources that could be used on better players. We see that the Braves have won fourteen consecutive division crowns, but what we don't see (and can never know) is how much better they might have been (115 regular season wins? A couple more World Series titles?) with improved strategies, processes, player acquisitions, etc. And the whole point of Moneyball is that you don't have to break the bank to get better players. It just requires taking a chance on unproven talent, trusting your system, and having the courage to see it through rather than taking the safe, uncreative solution of wasting money on "proven" mediocrities.

Under John Schuerholz's stewardship, we'll never know how much better the Braves could be by integrating Moneyball concepts into their team building approach. That Schuerholz seems so hostile to the new thinking, rather than seeking to use it to reassess and complement his own methods, is the real flaw here.

Sometimes the Headlines Just Write Themselves

2006-04-13T00:14:00.000-04:00

ATF rids Univ. of ninja threat
BY CAROLINE ERVIN
Published , April 12, 2006, 06:00:01 AM EDT

ATF agents are always on alert for anything suspicious — including ninjas.

Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearm agents, on campus Tuesday for Project Safe Neighborhoods training, detained a “suspicious individual” near the Georgia Center, University Police Chief Jimmy Williamson said.

Jeremiah Ransom, a sophomore from Macon, was leaving a Wesley Foundation pirate vs. ninja event when he was detained.

After being held in investigative detention, he was found to have violated no criminal laws and was not arrested.

Jeremiah Ransom unwittingly serves as a metaphor for the true nature of the relationship between the ATF and American citizens.

[...]

Ransom was wearing black sweatpants and an athletic T-shirt with one red bandanna covering the bottom half of his face and another covering the top of his head, Williamson said.

“Seeing someone with something across the face, from a federal standpoint — that’s not right,” McLemore said, explaining why agents believed something to be amiss.

Normally, this is where I would add snarky, outraged commentary. Is it even necessary in this case?

(h/t to deadspin)

Happy Birthday to Me!

2006-04-12T00:01:00.000-04:00

I know, I know: this is a shameless and borderline outrageous act of self-promotion and attention-whoring, but today -- April 12, 2006 -- marks my 33rd birthday and I'm in the mood to celebrate. And, seriously, what better way to celebrate your birthday than by attending Passover seder at Dick and Harry's (yes, those are my actual plans tonight)? Who needs cake? Pass the karpas and the Manischewitz, man. We're partying HARD.

Eh. Anyway, check out the always enlightening Wikipedia for more information about this stellar day. It's how I discovered that the famed American poet Ogden Nash actually composed verse about today's date. The poem is titled, oddly enough, "Lines in Praise of a Date Made Praiseworthy Solely By Something Very Nice That Happened to It:"

Lines in Praise of a Date Made Praiseworthy Solely by Something Very Nice That Happened to It

As through the calendar I delve
I pause to rejoice in April twelve.

Yea, be I in sickness or be I in health
My favorite date is April twealth.

It comes upon us, as a rule,
Eleven days after April fool,

And eighteen days ahead of May Day
When spring is generally in its heyday.

Down in New Mexico the chapparal
Is doing nicely by the twelfth of Apparal,

And Bay State towns such as Lowell and Pepperell
Begin to bloom on the twelfth of Epperell.

But regardless of the matter of weather,
There isn't any question whether.

No, not till the trumpet is blown by Gabriel
Shall we have such a day as the twelfth of Abriel.

Post-Mortem on the 2005-2006 UConn Huskies

2006-04-05T23:07:00.000-04:00

Sorry for the lack of updates lately, my lovelies. Time management has never been a strength and I'm still adjusting to my new reality. Anyway...

This should be my last UConn post for awhile. Several people gingerly offered consolation after UConn lost to George Mason in the regional final, and they even remarked on how well I handled it. Of course I was upset but, honestly, much relieved when it was all over. This team labored under intense pressure and scrutiny all season. They were anointed preseason co-favorites (along with Duke) and thus faced an uphill climb just to meet expectations every game.

And the pressure was only intensified by the transitory nature of the roster; with four seniors (Denham Brown, Hilton Armstrong, Rashad Anderson, and Ed Nelson) graduating and three more players (Marcus Williams, Rudy Gay, and Josh Boone) all but certain to leap to the NBA, the season would be judged by two agonizingly polar extremes: national championship or bust. Few teams can thrive under that kind of microscope and the Huskies seemed to sense it as the season progressed.

But what disappointed me was not the loss itself -- it's how they were ironically done in by the strengths they'd relied upon all season (defense, rebounding, and blocks). Here, check out the regular season numbers (30 games) vs. NCAA tournament games (4 games):

--Opponent FG%: regular season 37.3%; tournament 46.1%
--Rebound Margin: regular season +10.5; tournament +2.0
--Blocked Shots: regular season 9.3 per game; tournament 4.5 per game

Now, I realize that four tournament games represent a tiny sample size against (by definition) strong competition, but the numbers do tell a story. UConn's defense failed to execute in the tourney like it did during the regular season. George Mason shot 5 of 6 in overtime -- season over.

I'm disappointed that kids like Denham Brown and Hilton Armstrong ended their careers on such a low note. They won a national championship as sophomores and I hope people remember that as their legacy instead of the stunned #1 seed. They gave us four great years and I'll remember them fondly.

OK, now on to the look ahead. I like the composition of the 2006-2007 roster. They'll look more like a "traditional" UConn team -- a little smaller than recent teams but with better guard play and perimeter shooting. Jeff Adrien, Craig Austrie, and Marcus Johnson return and should be even better after a year of seasoning (although Johnson barely played in the season's second half). A.J. Price should finally take the court after two tumultuous years battling health and legal problems. The recruits look nasty: UConn's 2006 class is consistently ranked among the nation's best by most outlets. The Huskies will be very young but extremely athletic; the talented youngsters could contribute right away and the team might surprise some people.

Already I can't wait for next season!

The Problem With Unions, In a Nutshell

2006-03-31T13:22:00.000-05:00

Philly Plumbers Upset by Waterless Urinals

PHILADELPHIA - This city's hoped-for bragging rights as home of America's
tallest environmentally friendly building could go down the toilet.

In a city where organized labor is a force to be reckoned with, the
plumbers union has been raising a stink about a developer's plans to install 116
waterless, no-flush urinals in what will be Philadelphia's biggest
skyscraper.

Developer Liberty Property Trust says the urinals would save 1.6
million gallons of water a year at the 57-story Comcast Center, expected to open
next year.

But the union put out the word it doesn't like the idea of waterless
urinals — fewer pipes mean less work.

There you go. Property rights, freedom of contract, and common sense must be cast aside to accommodate a bunch of whiny, overpaid, officious assholes. These jerks are subverting the market process (for labor and materials) as if they have some right to work at the expense of the property owner. That's criminal. And the city's licensing department can actually reward this childish, anti-market behavior by refusing to approve waterless urinals.

Do you think these guys might have a problem with the Water Dept. dictating to them what kind of fixtures they can install in their homes? "Sorry sir, but your low-flow toilet deprives us of increased usage and revenue. You'll have to install something more costly." That would piss off just about anyone, wouldn't it? So why do these union goons think it's OK to pull the same stunt?

h/t to Fark.com

Update Teaser

2006-03-26T23:32:00.000-05:00

Overpromising and underdelivering seem to be a running theme here but I do have a few things rattling around in my noggin to share. It's way too late for me to blog at my preferred level but look soon for substantive posts covering the following:

George Mason 86, UConn 84 (OT). I'll have a post-mortem on the 2005-2006 Huskies and a look ahead to next year.
I saw "V for Vendetta" over the weekend. Although I was looking for more explicit voice to the themes and ideas of the amazing graphic novel, the film was excellent and I will post a thorough review shortly.
Bill Maher's "Real Time" roundtable discussion program on HBO is generally good but its shortcomings may eclipse its virtues. I'll explain.
You know them, you love them: it's another installment of the "Unfree Country Chronicles," this time starring the great state of Texas in an outrageous display of criminalizing a state of mind.

Until then...

Survive and Advance!

2006-03-25T18:32:00.000-05:00

My apologies for the lack of updates lately. I started the new job this week and have lacked the usual time and energy normally reserved for blogging. Anywho...

UConn 98, Washington 92 (OT). Wow. I missed significant chunks of the second half thanks to the local CBS affiliate broadcasting Florida-G'town instead. I tried unsuccessfully to get the game through PPV via DirecTV and that proved to be a debacle worthy of its own post. Too tired to pick myself up to head to a smoky sports bar, I settled for monitoring the game's progress via the ticker in the upper-left hand corner of the screen. Keeping tabs on a game that way is not recommended.

Despite Rashad's miracle trey to send the game into OT, this game ranks fifth at best among the pantheon of all-time great UConn NCAA wins. For one thing, as the #1 seed, they were expected to win (that's the lousy thing about rooting for the consensus "best team in the country" -- since winning is expected, you don't enjoy it as much. It feels more like relief than joy). More importantly, it's hard to call that game a "classic" because UConn was downright lousy for significant stretches. Here are my Top 5 best/classic UConn tournament wins:

1. 1990 Regional Semi-Final: UConn 71, Clemson 70. "It's Late, it's Tate, it's Fate." The phone lines in CT were literally jammed after Tate George's turnaround baseline jumper beat the Tigers. Unbelievable game that presaged UConn's status as a tournament force. Everyone remembers Tate but UConn fans will forever love Scotty Burrell (who was then a freshman) for his perfect full-court pass in the ultimate pressure situation.

2. 1999 National Championship: UConn 77, Duke 74. Trajan Langdon travels against Ricky Moore's tenacious defense, Khalid El-Amin calmly sinks two free throws to ice the game, and the Huskies shock the nation's consensus best team (37-1 entering the game) for their first national championship. And I was there!

3. 2004 National Semi-Final: UConn 79, Duke 78. An instant classic. Calhoun masterfully outflanks Coach K by recognizing early the tightness of the officiating. Calhoun sat Emeka Okafor, who picked up two cheap fouls early, for much of the first half despite the team's early struggles. With Duke in foul trouble late (especially Shelden Williams), Calhoun unleashes Okafor in the second half, and the big guy responds with 18 second-half points and the decisive hoop in a furious 12-0 run that capped the winning rally.

4. 1998 Regional Semi-Final: UConn 75, Washington 74. Rip Hamilton grabs Jake Voskuhl's miss and swishes a fall-away shot in the paint as time expires. One of those classic, "I remember where I was" games (Jock's & Jills in Brookhaven -- the place went nuts when Rip scored). Though the Huskies would lose the Regional Final to a loaded North Carolina team (featuring Antawn Jamison and Vince Carter, and in Greensboro no less) the team showed the pluck and fortitude that would characterize 1999's championship squad.

5. 2004 National Championship: UConn 82, Georgia Tech 74. A classic payback ass-kicking that didn't show up in the final score. UConn avenged GT's 77-61 victory in November with a dominating performance. Tech had no answer for Okafor or Ben Gordon and the deadly inside-out tandem would go second and third respectively in that year's NBA draft.

5a. 2006 Regional Semi-Final: UConn 98, Washington 92 (OT). The epitome of winning ugly. People will recall Rashad's ridiculous 3 with 1.8 seconds left but the real story was Marcus Williams donning the Superman cape again. And Calhoun has no right to complain about officiating again for a long time: UConn went to the line 47 times (vs. 23 for Washington).

Sorry for the digression. Here is why I think they'll win it all -- UConn's margin for error is far greater than any other team's. All-American Rudy Gay was all but invisible (4-10 shooting, 3 rebounds, and 6 turnovers in 32 minutes). They shot a meager 12-21 from the line in the first half (but went 8-8 in OT). They gave up 17 offensive rebounds to a much smaller team. They trailed by double figures in the second half. And then there was the usual nemesis: the team committed 26 turnovers!

(In order to say "26 turnovers" properly, yell it in the same mix of outrage and disbelief as Dante in "Clerks" did when he found out how many, um, "tongue-lashings" (37) his girlfriend had performed in the past. Getting it out really makes you feel better)

All of these negatives, and yet I'm still waiting for them to put together a complete game in this tournament and just blow somebody away. A game where they minimize turnovers, make smart decisions, display focus and intensity, play ferocious defense (that had been missing until the second half last night), and crush the opposition on the glass. Whether it's against George Mason tomorrow or (assuming they get there) somewhere in the Final Four, I still believe it's coming.

Regional Final Fearless Predictions:

1. Atlanta: Texas 68, LSU 64
2. Oakland: Memphis 76, UCLA 73
3. Minneapolis: Florida 72, Villanova 71
4. Washington D.C.: UConn 80, George Mason 72

More to come after UConn-GM goes final tomorrow...

NCAA Tournament Bracket Musings: Worthless Opinion Edition

2006-03-15T00:14:00.000-05:00

To those who prefer fevered anarchist rantings over fevered sports rantings, my apologies. Without further ado, my first ever Haphazardly Organized NCAA Tournament Bracket Musings:

Best First Round Matchup: Probably Arizona vs Wisconsin, Minneapolis Region. Runner-up: Alabama vs Marquette (Oakland Region) is an intriguing matchup.

First Round Upset Potential: Every year I pick one or two 11s over a 6 and it seems to be a sucker bet. I'm still taking UW-Milwaukee over Oklahoma (that's for you, Wayne) but I'm backing off my initial San Diego St. over Indiana pick. My bracket this year looks very conservative; I'm not picking nearly as many first round upsets as years past. This decision will probably look fantastically stupid by Friday morning. Anyway, bracket glory requires successfully picking a 12 seed over a 5, and Utah State over Washington seems the fashionable choice. But I also think Syracuse is vulnerable against Texas A&M; the Orange had a magical run through the Big East championship but teams sometimes leave their best efforts back in the conference tourneys. I can see a post-Big East title hangover setting in for the Orange. Syracuse advances if Gerry McNamara continues his stellar play. I'm going to pick them in the first round but it could be closer than many people think.

Best Potential Second Round Matchup: (Tie) 3-North Carolina vs. 6-Michigan State (Washington D.C.); 5-Pitt vs 4-Kansas (Oakland).

The First #1 Seed Out Will Be: (Tie) I have Memphis bowing out to Kansas in the Sweet Sixteen; Villanova falling just short against BC also in the Sweet Sixteen. If Villanova had a different draw (say, Duke's), I'd not hesitate to put them in the Final Four.

The First #2 Seed Out Will Be: Ohio State in the second round against Georgetown. (When Georgetown loses to Northern Iowa in the first round, I will ritualistically immolate my bracket and take down this post.)

My Final Four: UConn, Duke, BC, and Kansas.

National Champion: UConn over Duke (what, you thought I'd pick against my Huskies???)

A Couple More Random Thoughts:

I'm a Big East fan but their teams fuck up my brackets every single year. I'm constantly victimized by the "exposure effect." Pitt always falls short of where I think they can be (I finally wised up and picked them to lose to Pacific last year) but you pick against them at your own risk. I can see them knocking off Kansas even though I picked Kansas to go to the Final Four. Anyway, every year I overestimate Big East teams and my bracket ends up in tatters by the end of the tournament's first weekend. Despite boasting eight tournament teams (and it should be nine but Cincy got hosed) and the undisputed Best Conference belt, I'm not going crazy with Big East teams this time. I have just Georgetown, UConn, and Villanova in my Sweet Sixteen. So naturally, we'll probably see a repeat of 1985 (three Big East teams in the Final Four). I hate my bracket already.
The Pac-10, too, is completely unpredictable for me. I will freely admit to East Coast Bias, the bete noire of the Left Coast sports fan. UCLA is another one of those teams that fucks up my bracket annually. They tend to go the opposite of wherever I have them, so I apologize in advance to any UCLA fans who inadvertently stumbled here: I have the Bruins going to the Elite Eight this time, which means they're guaranteed to lose in the second round against the winner of Marquette-Alabama. Sorry.

My Team is the Consensus Pick for National Champion and I'm...Cautiously Optimistic? (Or, "I'm Ron Burgundy...?")

The national media is way too bullish on UConn's title chances. Maybe it's the salty, pessimistic New Englander in me, but I'm less sanguine about their chances. I have high hopes but it's clear this team is talented and flawed. Most talent in the country? I think so. Star players? Yep. Depth? Loads. Great coaching? Calhoun's a Hall of Famer and two-time national champion. So what's the problem? In no particular order: focus, intensity, and turnovers. They have all the traits of a national champion (experience, depth, great defense and rebounding, etc.) but too often their heads are up their asses for long periods. You can get away with that crap against South Florida in February but not against Illinois in March. UConn's seniors make too many freshman mistakes. I hold my breath every time Denham Brown dribbles the ball in the open court, begging for him not to lose control, get stripped, or get trapped. The next time Rashad Anderson fights through a screen to defend a shooter will be the first time. Plus, when Rash is cold, he's likely to shoot them right out of the game.

And on and on. How does a team with Marcus Williams running the point turn the ball over so damn much? They're just careless with the rock and it drives me batshit -- ill-conceived interior passes, home-run lobs that get deflected, not coming back to the ball to help a teammate being trapped or doubled, etc. When the Huskies play smart basketball, they can overwhelm even a talented opponent. But the way to beat them is to attack. This team should shred the press apart but they are way too tentative. Teams have some success attacking UConn's shotblockers on the interior; sure they'll get a few swatted, but the Huskies will go for head fakes, and their weakside help can lead to easy offensive rebounds and put-backs. Boone and Armstrong will also get into occasional foul trouble.

Without Boone and Armstrong in the lineup together, it's much harder for the team to establish its inside play, which is predicated on Williams spreading the floor, distributing to the big men, and getting easy baskets or kickouts for open jumpers from Brown or Anderson. That's it though; that's the offense. When the team struggles to establish its game in the paint and the jumpers aren't falling for the wing players, the half-court offense can wilt. Rudy Gay should be the guy to step up and lead the team with clutch baskets during these stretches but usually he disappears instead. Williams then takes it upon himself to make something happen, which he can do at times with dribble penetration and pull up floaters, but teams eventually stymie him and then the offense really goes into a funk.

I'm still picking UConn to win the national title because of their superior talent and myriad matchup problems for most teams. Nobody can match them on the interior. Their defense, rebounding, and shotblocking are unparalleled. Boone, Brown, Anderson, and Armstrong have championship experience. Calhoun is a master motivator. When UConn fires on all cylinders, like they did against Syracuse in the regular season (twice), the Villanova game at home, and the Seton Hall game, they're scary good.

The question is whether they can put it together for 6 consecutive tournament games -- I'm betting they can, because their best effort still outstrips the best anyone else can muster. But I'm worried about the unanimity with which the national experts have anointed UConn champion -- have all these experts watched as many UConn games as I have? The Huskies are plenty talented but will they be focused, smart, hungry, and tough enough?

The Unfree Country Chronicles, Vol II: Unpasteurized Milk Edition

2006-03-07T00:12:00.000-05:00

State gets tough on drinking...milk
Fans of unpasteurized product create 'white market' to get raw goods

Sunday, March 05, 2006
John Horton
Plain Dealer Reporter

Pssst . . . got raw milk?
Christina Trecaso does; the unpasteurized product -- which is illegal to sell in Ohio -- is chilling in the refrigerator at her Copley Township home. Just don't ask Trecaso where she acquired the fresh-from-the-farm liquid. The underground doesn't share its secrets.

The Summit County mother of two oversees Northeast Ohio's "white market," a network that supplies raw milk to more than 120 local families. Drop-off points exist in Akron, Broadview Heights, Cuyahoga Falls, Copley Township, Gates Mills and Lakewood.

Similar cooperatives -- which involve participants pooling money to buy "herd shares" at dairy farms and circumvent the ban on raw milk sales -- exist around Columbus, Dayton and Toledo.

In essence, the setup works a legal loophole. A group buys the cows on the farm, not the milk, and pays the farmer a monthly boarding and management fee. State law does not prohibit individuals from drinking raw milk taken from their own cows.

"We know what we want," said Trecaso, 36. "And there are ways to get it."

Opening that barn door is drawing notice, however. The Ohio Department of Agriculture is investigating the legality of the herd-share arrangement, said LeeAnne Mizer, a spokeswoman for the agency. She said there are public health concerns about the growing number of people consuming raw milk products.

Ohio outlawed raw milk sales to consumers in 1997. In 2003, the last dairy farm grandfathered into selling unpasteurized milk to individuals relinquished its license following a salmonella outbreak.

Raw milk can carry disease-causing organisms that cause a host of foodborne illnesses, according to health officials.

"Is raw milk worth the risk?" asked Mizer. "This state doesn't think so."

Pardon the horrendous pun, but holy fucking cow!

It's incredibly naive to think this issue is about "public health concerns" and "salmonella outbreaks." For another perspective, read the whole story and some of the discussion about it here. And leave aside the debate about the alleged benefits and risks of drinking fresh vs. pasteurized milk; it's really beside the point. What's most interesting is the state's cavalier attitude (ding! Horrendous pun #2! Get it? Cleveland Cavaliers? OK, I'm a moron) toward Ohioans' right to self-ownership.

Listen to the arrogance oozing from LeeAnne fucking Mizer; what a typically snotty, officious bureaucrat: "Is raw milk worth the risk? This state doesn't think so." With those eleven little words, Mizer sums up tyranny and the nanny state's attitude toward its subjects, doesn't she? When the state's "judgment" supercedes that of its so-called free people, that is not freedom. When "free" people are not permitted to make informed choices and live with the risks and consequences thereof, that is tyranny.

And we're not talking about the "choice" of initiating violence or force against others so don't even bother trying that pathetic strawman with me. This is about what individuals choose to put in their bodies. If you are legally barred from making so fundamental choice on your own, then you are not free, you belong to whomever is legally empowered to make that decision for you. You are a ward of the state.

Self-ownership is the most basic property right imaginable. When are we going to stand up and tell the LeeAnne Mizers of the world to just shut the fuck up?

(h/t to Fark.com)

The Unfree Country Chronicles, Part I: When You Pay Down Your Debt, the Terrorists Win

2006-03-04T12:21:00.000-05:00

If you ever want to see me choke on my own bile, then suggest to me, in all seriousness, that "it's a free country!" Seriously, just try it. Four little words, that's all. Four little words that make me want to break furniture with my bare hands or repeatedly kick an effigy of Sean Hannity where the naughty bits should be.

People who say such things are either profoundly, incurably ignorant, or colossal fucking morons. There's very little room for reasoned debate on this issue. Sorry. The anecdotal evidence of our unfree status is so bleedingly, indisputably apparent, that this is one of those issues where the devil's advocate can pretty much go fuck himself.

In a shockingly vainglorious attempt to make this truth abundantly clear, herewith I present the first installment of what I hope becomes an ongoing series: The Unfree Country Chronicles:

(Oh what, title not clever enough for you? YOU come up with something pithy and urbane, Socrates. Maybe then I'll use it.)

Walter and Deana Soehnge were recently red-flagged by the Department of Homeland Security. What heinous act of sedition alerted the state to the possible threat the Soehnges posed? Their credit card payment was too high:

They just paid a hefty chunk of their credit card balance. And they learned how frighteningly wide the net of suspicion has been cast.

After sending in the check, they checked online to see if their account had been duly credited. They learned that the check had arrived, but the amount available for credit on their account hadn't changed.

So Deana Soehnge called the credit-card company. Then Walter called.

"When you mess with my money, I want to know why," he said.

They both learned the same astounding piece of information about the little things that can set the threat sensors to beeping and blinking.

They were told, as they moved up the managerial ladder at the call center, that the amount they had sent in was much larger than their normal monthly payment. And if the increase hits a certain percentage higher than that normal payment, Homeland Security has to be notified. And the money doesn't move until the threat alert is lifted.

It shouldn't take an anarchist smartass like me to point out that, when the state forces financial institutions to act as spying proxies, we've pretty much forfeited most reasonable claims to a 'free' society.

And the Kafka-esque nature of the Soehnges' predicament is stunning: send in no payment and their credit score suffers, harming their prospects for future loans. Send in too small a payment and accrue more interest and debt. Send in too large a payment and raise the suspicions of the feds despite not one scintilla of evidence of criminal activity. I'm just brimming with questions at this point:

How are they to read the minds of bureaucrats to know how much is the "right" amount?
Does a 'free country' freeze its citizens' assets until the unfairly applied label of 'threat alert' is lifted?
Isn't that tantamount to being forced to prove your innocence, a concept pretty noxious to all notions of a free society?
Had the Soehnges not called to find out why credit for their payment was delayed, would they have ever been notified that DHS had to vet the transaction?
If not, how would the 'threat alert' ever have been lifted? Wouldn't this require some kind of DHS monitoring or investigation of the Soehnges without their knowledge?

This is a pretty heavy-handed way of dealing with people repaying a loan for things as innocuous as really high thread count sheets or perhaps a sweet retro stereo system with turntable. (I don't know what they actually bought. Just work with me here.) It is chilling that all the state has to do is invoke the specter of terrorism and presto! Innocent (even responsible) behavior becomes suspect, and outrageous state snooping and intrusions are justified on the flimsiest of pretexts.

And it hardly needs to be pointed out where all this will end up: less and less privacy and financial freedom for us all, more state spying, and not one act of terror prevented from any of it.

Free country, my arse.

(h/t to Lew Rockwell via newsalert)